All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail ProjectWest Palm Beach to Miami, Florida 

Supplemental Environmental AssessmentWest Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Prepared Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §4332, 49 U.S.C. §303 and 64 Fed. Reg. 28455 

Approved: 

/oavid Valenstein, Chief 

Environmental and Planning Division 

Federal Railroad Administration 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) evaluated the potential environmental and related impacts of 

constructing and operating an intercity passenger rail service proposed by All Aboard Florida -

Operations LLC (AAF) between West Palm Beach and Miami, FL. FRA and AAF conducted an 

environmental review in 2012/2013, including preparing and issuing both an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) (Environmental Assessment and Section 4(j) Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida 

Passenger Rail Project West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida) and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). 

Initial evaluation of environmental impacts for the EA and FONSI included a Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

(VMF) to support AAF passenger service at an existing rail maintenance yard in Fort Lauderdale 

(Andrews Yard), which Florida East Coast Railway, L.L.C. (FECR) owns and operates. However, the 

Andrews Yard location is unavailable in a configuration necessary for AAF's use at this time; therefore, 

AAF has identified an alternative location. This Supplemental EA (SEA) provides information regarding 

potential environmental impacts associated with the VMF at the WPB Rail Yard, and compares those to 

the impact analyses conducted for the originally proposed VMF location at the Andrews Yard in Fort 

Lauderdale. This evaluation considers the potential for physical. economic, social. cultural, and biological 

impacts to the environment, and includes analyses and modeling results evaluated for current and future 

operations at the WPB Rail Yard. Written comments should be provided in writing to FRA at the address 

below, or sent to AAFSEA_Comments@vhb.com, on or before November 24, 2014. 

John Winkle 

FRA Environmental Specialist 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE 

Room W38-311 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

(202) 493-6067 

October 2014 
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

This page Intentionally Left Blank
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Table of Contents i October 2014

   

Table of Contents 

1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Proposed Action ..................................................................................................................... 1-1 

1.2 Project Proponent ................................................................................................................... 1-3 

1.3 Project History ........................................................................................................................ 1-3 

1.3.1 Phase I ....................................................................................................................... 1-3 

1.3.2 Phase II ...................................................................................................................... 1-4 

1.4 Permits and Approvals ........................................................................................................... 1-4 

1.5 Coordination and Consultation ............................................................................................... 1-5 

2 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................................ 2-1

3 Proposed Action .............................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Alternatives Considered ......................................................................................................... 3-1 

3.2 Proposed Vehicle Maintenance Facility ................................................................................. 3-2

3.3 Train Operations and Track Improvements ............................................................................ 3-3 

4 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation ........................................... 4-1

4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 4-1 

4.2 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................... 4-3 

4.2.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................ 4-3

4.2.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................. 4-3 

4.3 Noise and Vibration ................................................................................................................ 4-5 

4.3.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................ 4-9

4.3.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ 4-13 

4.4 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................... 4-18 

4.4.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................. 4-18 

4.4.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ 4-20 

4.5 Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste ................................................................................. 4-20 

4.5.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................. 4-20 

4.5.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ 4-23 

4.6 Transportation ...................................................................................................................... 4-24 

4.6.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................. 4-24 

4.6.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ 4-25 

4.7 Social and Economic Environment ....................................................................................... 4-26 

4.7.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................. 4-26 

4.7.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ 4-28 
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Table of Contents ii October 2014

   

4.8 Environmental Justice .......................................................................................................... 4-28 

4.8.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................. 4-29 

4.8.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ 4-31 

4.9 Safety .................................................................................................................................... 4-31 

4.10 Energy .................................................................................................................................. 4-34 

4.10.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................. 4-34

4.10.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ 4-34 

4.11 Construction Impacts and Mitigation .................................................................................... 4-35 

4.11.1 Air Quality ................................................................................................................ 4-35 

4.11.2 Noise and Vibration ................................................................................................. 4-35 

4.11.3 Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste .................................................................... 4-40 

4.11.4 Social and Economic ............................................................................................... 4-40

4.12 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................... 4-40 

5 List of Preparers ............................................................................................................................... 5-1

6 Acronyms, Abbreviations and Glossary ........................................................................................ 6-1

Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................... 6-1

Glossary ............................................................................................................................................. 6-4

7 References ........................................................................................................................................ 7-1

8 Distribution List ................................................................................................................................ 8-1

Appendices 

Appendix A – Agency Coordination 

Appendix B – Noise and Vibration Analysis 

   
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Table of Contents iii October 2014

   

List of Tables 

Table No. Description Page 

Table 4-1 Resource Categories Not Applicable ........................................................................ 4-2 

Table 4-2 Applicable Resource Categories ............................................................................... 4-2 

Table 4-3 Calculated Projected Emissions Associated with the Project ................................... 4-4 

Table 4-4 Existing Condition Noise Impacts (Ldn) by Cluster Location .................................. 4-11 

Table 4-5 Existing Vibration Levels ......................................................................................... 4-13 

Table 4-6 Noise Modeling Inputs from Proposed Passenger Operations ............................... 4-14 

Table 4-7 Results of Noise Impact Analysis Before Mitigation ................................................ 4-15 

Table 4-8 Results of Noise Impact Analysis After Mitigation ................................................... 4-16 

Table 4-9 Future Condition Vibration Levels ........................................................................... 4-17 

Table 4-10 Historic Resources within the Project Area and Adjacent Parcels .......................... 4-19 

Table 4-11 High-risk Contamination and Hazardous Waste Site .............................................. 4-22 

Table 4-12 Anticipated Hazardous Products Storage at the WPB Rail Yard ............................ 4-23 

Table 4-13 Summary of Existing (2011) Freight Operating Characteristics and 

Average Crossing Closures in Palm Beach County ................................................ 4-25 

Table 4-14 Total Populations at the State, County, City, and Project Study Area .................... 4-27 

Table 4-15 Existing Labor Force and General Employment Data for the State, 

County, City, and Project Study Area ...................................................................... 4-27 

Table 4-16 Median Household Income for the State, County, City, and 

Project Study Area ................................................................................................... 4-28 

Table 4-17 Summary of Minority and Hispanic or Latino Populations for the 

State, County, City, and Project Study Area ........................................................... 4-30 

Table 4-18 Summary of Poverty Data (2007-2011 ACS 5-year estimates) for the 

State, County, City, and Project Study Area ........................................................... 4-30 

Table 4-19 Construction Noise Impact Assessment .................................................................. 4-38

Table 4-20 Construction Vibration Impacts ............................................................................... 4-39

   
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Table of Contents iv October 2014

   

List of Figures 

Figure No. Description Page 

 

Figure 1-1 WPB Rail Yard Project Vicinity .................................................................................. 1-2 

Figure 3-1 WPB Rail Yard ........................................................................................................... 3-4 

Figure 3-2 WPB Rail Yard Tracks (South) .................................................................................. 3-5 

Figure 4-1 Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments ........................... 4-6 

Figure 4-2 Typical Levels of Ground-Borne Vibration ................................................................. 4-7

Figure 4-3 Propagation of Ground-Borne Vibration and Ground-Borne Noise into Buildings .... 4-8

Figure 4-4 Noise Monitor and Cluster Locations ...................................................................... 4-10 

Figure 4-5 Vibration Curve ........................................................................................................ 4-12

Figure 4-6 Contaminated Sites Map for West Palm Beach Rail Yard ...................................... 4-21 

Figure 4-7 West Palm Beach Rail Yard Minority Population .................................................... 4-32 

Figure 4-8 West Palm Beach Rail Yard Poverty Population ..................................................... 4-33 

Figure 4-9 Construction Noise & Vibration Impact Analysis ..................................................... 4-36 

Figure 4-10 Construction Noise & Vibration Impact Analysis, Cont. .......................................... 4-37 
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Introduction 1‐1 October 2014

   

1 Introduction 

1.1 Proposed Action 

Pursuant	 to	 the	National	 Environmental	 Policy	 Act	 (NEPA)	 of	 19691	 	 and	 Council	 on	 Environmental	

Quality	 (CEQ)	NEPA	 regulations,2	 the	 Federal	 Railroad	 Administration	 (FRA)	 evaluated	 the	 potential	

environmental	 and	 related	 impacts	 of	 constructing	 and	 operating	 an	 intercity	 passenger	 rail	 service	

proposed	by	All	Aboard	Florida	‐	Operations	LLC	(AAF)	between	West	Palm	Beach	and	Miami,	FL.	FRA	

and	AAF	conducted	an	environmental	review	in	2012/2013,	including	preparing	and	issuing	both	an	

Environmental	Assessment	(EA)	and	a	Finding	of	No	Significant	Impact	(FONSI)	(AAF	2012;	FRA	2013).	

Initial	evaluation	of	environmental	impacts	for	the	EA	and	FONSI	included	a	Vehicle	Maintenance	Facility	

(VMF)	to	support	AAF	passenger	service	at	an	existing	rail	maintenance	yard	in	Fort	Lauderdale	(Andrews	

Yard),	which	Florida	East	Coast	Railway,	L.L.C.	(FECR)	owns	and	operates.	Since	the	publication	of	the	2012	

EA,	FECR	has	committed	a	substantial	portion	of	the	Andrews	Yard’s	property	to	a	transload	freight	facility.	

The	available	excess	land	will	not	sustain	the	needs	for	a	VMF	on	the	property.	The	configuration	of	the	

property	would	require	AAF	to	construct	duplicate	buildings	at	two	locations	in	the	yard	to	service	trains,	

increasing	the	cost	of	the	facility.		Additionally,	only	7	sets	of	seven‐car	trains	could	be	stored	at	any	time.	

The	AAF	trainsets	will	eventually	have	8	sets	of	ten‐car	trains,	causing	a	physical	constraint	on	the	mainline	

of	Andrews	Yard.	Because	of	the	configuration	constraints,	the	train	washing	station	would	need	to	be	built	

within	the	mainline	right‐of‐way	located	outside	of	the	Andrews	Yard	property,	requiring	additional	moves	

to	wash	trains.		AAF	would	also	require	the	use	of	at	least	30	feet	of	the	mainline	right‐of‐way	for	access	

tracks	and	storage	tracks.		This	use	of	the	mainline	would	interfere	with	freight	operations	at	the	Andrews	

Yard.		For	these	reasons,	AAF	has	identified	an	alternative	location.	The	proposed	WPB	yard	would	allow	all	

maintenance	and	washing	buildings	to	be	located	directly	within	the	storage	area,	would	provide	storage	

for	10‐car	trainsets	and	would	not	cause	the	fouling	of	mainline	tracks.	

This	Supplemental	EA	(SEA)	provides	information	regarding	potential	environmental	impacts	associated	

with	the	VMF	at	the	WPB	Rail	Yard	(Project),	and	compares	those	to	the	impact	analyses	conducted	for	

the	originally	proposed	VMF	location	at	the	Andrews	Yard	in	Fort	Lauderdale.	This	evaluation	considers	

the	 potential	 for	 physical,	 economic,	 social,	 cultural,	 and	 biological	 impacts	 to	 the	 environment,	 and	

includes	analyses	and	modeling	results	evaluated	for	current	and	future	operations	at	the	WPB	Rail	Yard.		

The	new	location,	the	West	Palm	Beach	(WPB)	Rail	Yard,	is	an	active	FECR	freight	yard	currently	used	for	

staging	and	building	freight	trains,	which	includes	assembling	freight	rail	cars	to	be	picked	up	when	a	

locomotive	goes	to	the	WPB	Rail	Yard	to	drop	off	empty	rail	cars.	The	WPB	Rail	Yard	is	an	approximately	

27‐acre	site	located	in	WPB,	east	of	Division	Avenue,	between	15th	Street	and	23rd	Street	(Figure	1‐1).	

Under	existing	operations,	four	freight	trains	stop	daily	at	this	facility:	two	during	the	day	(from	7:01	AM	

to	10:00	PM)	and	two	at	night	(from	10:01	PM	to	7:00	AM).	Each	train	has	an	approximate	total	idling	

time	of	45	minutes,	which	includes	the	time	the	train	remains	stationary,	the	staging	and	time	required	

for	building	the	freight.		

1 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. 

2 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 
Project # 6063-12-0212

All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project

\\Vhb\proj\Orlando\61827.00 FRA NEPA Support\graphics\FIGURES\8x11portrait.indd

Project Vicinity

0 1.75 3.5 7 Miles

1-1
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Introduction 1‐3 October 2014

   

1.2 Project Proponent 

AAF	is	a	subsidiary	of	Florida	East	Coast	Industries,	LLC	(FECI),	which	is	a	transportation,	infrastructure	

and	commercial	real	estate	company	based	in	Coral	Gables,	Florida.	Florida	East	Coast	Railway,	L.L.C.	

(FECR),	an	affiliate	of	FECI,	owns	the	right‐of‐way	and	existing	railroad	infrastructure	within	the	corridor	

between	Miami	and	Jacksonville,	over	which	FECR	operates	a	freight	rail	service	(FECR	Corridor).	AAF	

has	 an	 exclusive,	 perpetual	 easement	 granted	 by	 FECR	 whereby	 AAF	 may	 develop	 and	 operate	 the	

proposed	passenger	rail	service	within	the	FECR	Corridor.	AAF	will	operate	the	proposed	passenger	rail	

service	within	the	FECR	Corridor	in	coordination	with	FECR's	continued	freight	service.	

1.3 Project History 

AAF	is	proposing	to	construct	and	operate	a	privately	owned	and	operated	intercity	passenger	railroad	

system	that	will	connect	Orlando	and	Miami,	with	intermediate	stops	in	Fort	Lauderdale	and	West	Palm	

Beach,	Florida.	AAF	proposes	to	implement	the	Project	through	a	phased	approach.	Phase	I	would	focus	

on	the	West	Palm	Beach	to	Miami	section	while	Phase	II	would	focus	on	the	Orlando	to	West	Palm	Beach	

section.		

AAF	has	applied	for	federal	funds	through	the	Railroad	Rehabilitation	and	Improvement	Financing	(RRIF)	

program,	which	is	a	loan	and	loan	guarantee	program	administered	by	FRA	as	described	in	49	Code	of	

Federal	Regulations	(CFR)	part	260.	Under	this	program,	the	FRA	Administrator	is	authorized	to	provide	

direct	loans	and	loan	guarantees	that	may	be	used	to	acquire,	improve,	or	rehabilitate	rail	equipment	or	

facilities	or	develop	new	intermodal	or	railroad	facilities.	Because	AAF	has	applied	for	a	loan	under	FRA’s	

RRIF	program,	FRA	is	required	under	NEPA	to	conduct	an	analysis	of	the	potential	environmental	impacts	

resulting	from	the	Project.	NEPA	compliance	is	a	prerequisite	for	RRIF	approval,	and	FRA	will	not	approve	

the	Project	for	a	RRIF	loan	until	the	NEPA	process	is	complete.	A	RRIF	loan,	if	approved,	would	be	part	of	

an	overall	capital	structure	put	in	place	by	AAF	to	finance	the	infrastructure	improvements.	

1.3.1 Phase I 

AAF	proposes	to	implement	the	Project	through	a	phased	approach.	Phase	I	would	provide	rail	service	on	

the	West	Palm	Beach	to	Miami	section	while	Phase	II	would	extend	service	to	Orlando.	Phase	I	would	

provide	passenger	rail	service	along	the	66.5	miles	of	the	FECR	Corridor	connecting	West	Palm	Beach,	

Fort	Lauderdale,	and	Miami.	AAF	has	obtained	private	financing	and	is	proceeding	to	implement	Phase	I.	

FRA	and	AAF	conducted	an	environmental	review	of	Phase	I	in	2012/2013,	including	preparing	and	issuing	

both	an	EA	and	a	FONSI	(AAF	2012;	FRA	2013).	Phase	I	of	the	Project,	as	described	in	the	2012	EA,	includes	

constructing	three	new	stations	(West	Palm	Beach,	Fort	Lauderdale	and	Miami),	purchasing	five	train	sets,	

adding	 a	 second	 track	 along	 most	 of	 the	 66.5‐mile	 corridor	 and	 adding	 16	 new	 round‐trip	 intercity	

passenger	train	trips	(32	one‐way	trips)	on	the	West	Palm	Beach	to	Miami	section	of	the	FECR	Corridor.	

FRA	 concluded	 that	 Phase	 I	 has	 independent	 utility.3	 FRA	 has	 made	 no	 decision	 under	 the	 Railroad	

Rehabilitation	and	Improvement	Financing	(RRIF)	program	as	to	whether	a	loan	would	be	provided	for	

Phase	I.		

3 In this case, “independent utility” means that Phase I could be advanced and serve a transportation need even if Phase II were not constructed. 
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Introduction 1‐4 October 2014

   

As	a	result	of	the	environmental	review	process	conducted	by	FRA	in	cooperation	with	AAF	for	Phase	I,	AAF	

is	authorized	to	construct	the	Phase	I	component	of	the	Project	as	reviewed	and	approved	in	the	2012	EA	

and	FRA’s	subsequent	FONSI.	Since	the	FONSI,	AAF	proposed	and	FRA	has	evaluated	a	new	location	for	the	

proposed	Fort	Lauderdale	Station	and	issued	a	re‐evaluation	decision	that	found	no	significant	difference	

from	 the	 location	 evaluated	 in	 the	 2012	 EA.	 Because	 AAF	 is	 now	 proposing	 to	 construct	 a	 vehicle	

maintenance	facility	in	a	different	location	than	the	location	evaluated	in	the	2012	EA,	and	because	that	new	

location	 has	 the	 potential	 for	 different	 environmental	 impacts	than	 the	 Fort	 Lauderdale	 VMF	 location	

previously	evaluated,	FRA	has	determined	that	a	Supplemental	EA	is	necessary	to	assess	the	proposed	

West	Palm	Beach	VMF.	

1.3.2 Phase II 

Phase	II	of	the	Project	includes	adding	a	second	track	within	128.5	miles	of	the	FECR	Corridor	between	

Cocoa	and	West	Palm	Beach,	constructing	a	new	railroad	line	parallel	to	State	Road	(SR)	528	between	the	

Orlando	International	Airport	(MCO)	and	Cocoa	and	constructing	a	new	VMF	on	property	owned	by	the	

Greater	Orlando	Airport	Authority	(GOAA)	near	MCO.	The	proposed	service	would	use	a	new	Intermodal	

Station	 at	 MCO	 that	 is	 being	 constructed	 by	 GOAA	 as	 an	 independent	 action.	 The	 Project	 includes	

purchasing	 five	additional	passenger	 train	sets	and	would	add	16	new	round‐trip	intercity	passenger	

train	trips	(32	one‐way	trips)	on	the	new	railroad	segment	and	on	the	FECR	Corridor	between	Cocoa	and	

West	Palm	Beach.	No	additional	trips	beyond	those	considered	in	the	2012	EA	(16	round‐trip	intercity	

passenger	train	trips	[32	one‐way	trips])	would	be	added	on	the	West	Palm	Beach	to	Miami	section.		

Because	Phase	II	loan	approval	is	a	separate	Federal	action,	FRA	has	undertaken	a	separate	NEPA	review	

of	the	proposed	extension.	Given	that	operations	would	cover	the	full	corridor	from	Orlando	to	Miami,	

the	Draft	Environmental	Impact	Statement	(EIS)	(DEIS),	under	review	concurrent	with	this	SEA,	analyzes	

the	effects	of	completing	both	phases	of	the	Project.4		

1.4 Permits and Approvals 

FRA	is	 the	lead	agency	 for	NEPA	 review	 for	 the	Project.	The	Applicant,	AAF,	if	approved,	will	 secure	

financing	and	will	own	the	system	and	be	responsible	for	the	Project’s	design,	construction,	operation,	

and	maintenance.		

Pursuant	 to	 NEPA,5	 Council	 on	 Environmental	 Quality	 (CEQ)	 NEPA	 regulations,6	 and	 FRA’s	 NEPA	

procedures	(FRA	1999),	FRA	has	evaluated	the	potential	human	and	natural	environmental	impacts	of	

relocating	the	Fort	Lauderdale	Vehicle	Maintenance	Facility	to	the	WPB	Rail	Yard	in	this	SEA.	

FRA	has	consulted	with	the	State	Historic	Preservation	Officer	(SHPO)	and	requested	concurrence	with	

FRA’s	 finding	 of	 no	adverse	effect	 to	 historic	 properties.	No	 other	 federal	 or	 state	agency	 permits	 or	

approvals	are	required	for	this	Project.	

4 The DEIS was published on September 19, 2014. It is available online at http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0672. 

5 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq. 

6 40 CFR parts 1500-1508 
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Introduction 1‐5 October 2014

   

1.5 Coordination and Consultation 

FRA	sent	a	coordination	letter	to	United	States	Fish	and	Wildlife	Service	(USFWS)	on	August	18,	2014,	

seeking	concurrence	that	this	Project	would	not	impact	Federal	or	state‐listed	threatened	or	endangered	

species.	USFWS	concurred	with	these	findings	on	a	letter	dated	August	27,	2014	(see	Appendix	A).	FRA	

also	contacted	the	SHPO	on	August	18,	2014,	seeking	concurrence	that	the	new	site	location	would	not	

impact	 any	 historic	 resources	 or	 archaeological	 sites.	 SHPO	 subsequently	 requested	 additional	

information	(see	Appendix	A).	

The	following	agencies	and	authorities	were	on	the	Phase	I	EA	distribution	list,	and	will	receive	copies	of	

this	Draft	SEA:	

x Federal	Agencies:	

o Federal	Aviation	Administration	

o Federal	Highway	Administration	

o Federal	Transit	Administration	

o National	Marine	Fisheries	Service	

o United	States	Army	Corps	of	Engineers	

o United	States	Coast	Guard	

o United	States	Department	of	Transportation	

o United	States	Environmental	Protection	Agency	

o United	States	Fish	and	Wildlife	Service		

x State	Agencies:	

o Florida	Division	of	Historical	Resources/State	Historic	Preservation	Officer		

o State	of	Florida	Clearinghouse	(Distribution	to	State	Agencies)	

x Other	Organizations:	

o Palm	Beach	Metropolitan	Planning	Organization	

o South	Florida	Water	Management	District	

x Local	Government	Authorities:	

o City	of	West	Palm	Beach	

o Palm	Beach	County	

   
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Introduction 1‐6 October 2014

   

This page intentionally left blank.
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Purpose and Need 2‐1 October 2014

   

2 Purpose and Need 

The	purpose	for	Phase	I	of	the	Project	from	West	Palm	Beach	to	Miami,	Florida,	as	described	in	the	2012	

EA,	 is	 to	 address	 South	 Florida’s	 current	 and	 future	 needs	 by	 enhancing	 its	 transportation	 system,	

improving	 safety	 and	 air	 quality,	 creating	 jobs,	 providing	 a	 transportation	 alternative	 for	millions	 of	

Floridians	and	tourists,	and	supporting	economic	development	by:	

x Returning	the	existing	Florida	East	Coast	Railway,	L.L.C.	(FECR)	corridor	to	a	dual‐track	system	to	

allow	for	the	restoration	of	fast,	dependable,	and	efficient	passenger	service	in	Southeast	Florida;	and	

x Implementing	a	privately	owned,	operated,	and	maintained	intercity	passenger	rail	service	that	will	

connect	downtown	West	Palm	Beach	to	downtown	Miami,	with	one	stop	in	downtown	Fort	Lauderdale.	

Through	Phase	I,	AAF	plans	to	enhance	mobility	and	improve	safety	in	the	region,	particularly	along	the	

Interstate	95	corridor	(I‐95),	by	reintroducing	passenger	rail	service,	which	ceased	in	1968,	between	

downtown	West	Palm	Beach	and	downtown	Miami	with	one	stop	in	downtown	Fort	Lauderdale.	This	

development	will	provide	a	transportation	solution	for	millions	of	Floridians	and	tourists.	

The	 purpose	 of	 the	 proposed	 VMF	 is	 to	 accommodate	 the	 storage	 and	 maintenance	 needs	 of	 the	

passenger	trains	associated	with	the	Project.	Necessary	services	include	 fueling,	routine	maintenance,	

overnight	train	storage,	vehicle	washing,	and	daily	cleaning	and	stocking.		

The	WPB	Rail	Yard	is	needed	 to	provide	a	suitable	location	 for	a	VMF	 to	support	 the	AAF	passenger	

service.	The	proposed	location	would	place	the	layover	facility	(overnight	train	storage)	at	one	end	of	the	

passenger	 rail	 line	 in	 order	 to	 reduce	 or	 eliminate	 non‐revenue	 trips.	 Utilizing	 FECR’s	 existing	

WPB	 Rail	 Yard	 would	 eliminate	 the	 need	 to	 acquire	 parcels	 or	 change	 land	 uses.	 The	 maintenance	

activities	planned	to	be	conducted	at	the	VMF	would	be	performed	within	the	existing	footprint	of	the	

WPB	Rail	Yard.	
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Purpose and Need 2‐2 October 2014

   

This page intentionally left blank.
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Proposed Action 3‐1 October 2014

   

3 Proposed Action 

AAF	has	proposed	a	new	location	for	the	VMF,	associated	with	the	Project,	at	the	West	Palm	Beach	(WPB)	

Rail	Yard.	Proposed	operational	and	physical	changes	at	the	existing	WPB	Rail	Yard	would	provide	the	

capacity	 for	 maintaining	 and	 staging	 passenger	 trains.	 In	 order	 to	 perform	 necessary	 maintenance	

services,	 physical	 changes	 to	 the	 existing	 WPB	 Rail	 Yard	 require	 new	 facilities	 and	 buildings,	 and	

additional	dedicated	 tracks.	Together,	 these	proposed	changes	comprise	 the	Project	evaluated	in	 this	

Draft	Supplemental	Environmental	Assessment	(SEA),	which	Section	3.2	describes	in	detail.		

3.1 Alternatives Considered 

Initial	evaluation	of	environmental	impacts	in	the	2012	EA	considered	locating	the	VMF,	which	would	

support	AAF	passenger	service,	at	an	existing	rail	maintenance	yard	in	Fort	Lauderdale	(Andrews	Yard),	

which	FECR	owns	and	operates.	However,	the	Andrews	Yard	location	is	unavailable	in	a	configuration	

necessary	for	AAF’s	use	at	this	time;	therefore,	this	site	was	eliminated	from	consideration.		

Initial	evaluation	of	environmental	impacts	for	the	EA	and	FONSI	included	a	Vehicle	Maintenance	Facility	

(VMF)	 to	 support	 AAF	 passenger	 service	 at	 an	 existing	 rail	 maintenance	 yard	 in	 Fort	 Lauderdale	

(Andrews	Yard),	which	Florida	East	Coast	Railway,	L.L.C.	(FECR)	owns	and	operates.	Since	the	publication	

of	the	2012	EA,	FECR	has	committed	a	substantial	portion	of	the	Andrews	Yard’s	property	to	a	transload	

freight	 facility.	 The	 available	 excess	 land	 will	 not	 sustain	 the	 needs	 for	 a	 VMF	 on	 the	 property.	 The	

configuration	of	the	property	would	require	AAF	to	construct	duplicate	buildings	at	two	locations	in	the	

yard	to	service	trains,	increasing	the	cost	of	the	facility.		Additionally,	no	more	than	7	seven‐car	trains	

could	be	stored	at	any	time.	The	AAF	trainsets	will	eventually	have	8	ten‐car	trains,	causing	a	physical	

constraint	on	the	mainline	of	Andrews	Yard.	Because	of	the	configuration	constraints,	the	train	washing	

station	would	need	 to	be	built	within	 the	mainline	right‐of‐way	located	outside	of	 the	Andrews	Yard	

property,	requiring	additional	moves	to	wash	trains.		AAF	would	also	require	the	use	of	at	least	30	feet	of	

the	mainline	right‐of‐way	for	access	tracks	and	storage	tracks.		This	use	of	the	mainline	would	interfere	

with	freight	operations	at	the	Andrews	Yard.			

AAF	has	identified	an	alternative	location.	The	new	location	of	the		West	Palm	Beach	Rail	Yard	(WPB	Rail	

Yard)	is	a	27‐acre	FECR	freight	layover	yard	currently	used	for	staging	and	building	freight	trains,	which	

includes	assembling	freight	rail	cars	to	be	picked	up	when	a	locomotive	goes	to	the	WPB	Rail	Yard	to	drop	

off	empty	rail	cars	 (Figure	3‐1).	Project	construction	would	occur	entirely	within	 the	 footprint	of	 the	

existing	FECR	Corridor	and	existing	WPB	Rail	Yard,	and	would	not	require	any	property	acquisition.	

The	principal	difference	between	the	two	locations	is	the	proximity	of	the	proposed	VMF	to	the	WPB	

Station	(the	nearest	train	station	for	both	sites).	The	VMF	at	Andrews	Yard	would	have	been	located	

approximately	30	miles	from	the	WPB	Rail	Station,	requiring	approximately	60	miles	of	rail	travel	

(round	trip)	in	order	to	reach	the	VMF.	The	existing	WPB	Rail	Yard	is	0.9	miles	from	the	WPB	Station.	

This	proximity	reduces	the	number	of	at‐grade	crossings	required	during	travel	from	the	train	station	
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Proposed Action 3‐2 October 2014

   

to	the	VMF.	Travel	to	and	from	Andrews	Yard	would	have	involved	63	crossings,	while	the	WPB	Rail	

Yard	will	require	only	four	at‐grade	crossings	in	each	direction.	

3.2 Proposed Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

The	proposed	location	for	the	VMF	is	the	WPB	Rail	Yard,	which	is	an	approximately	27‐acre	site	located	

in	West	Palm	Beach,	east	of	Division	Avenue,	between	15th	Street	and	23rd	Street	(Figure	3‐1).	At	this	

location,	 there	are	 currently	 9	 tracks	within	 the	 FECR	main	line	 (two	main	line	 tracks	and	7	 storage	

tracks),	a	row	of	maintenance	and	staff	buildings,	and	2	storage	tracks	within	the	central	portion	of	the	

site.	The	western	portion	of	the	site	is	used	to	stage	containers	and	trucks.	Access	to	the	site	is	from	15th

Street.	The	proposed	changes	at	this	facility	would	expand	capacity	for	staging	and	maintaining	passenger	

trains.	In	order	to	perform	these	necessary	services,	physical	changes	to	the	WPB	Rail	Yard	would	include	

new	facilities	and	buildings,	four	additional	tracks,	and	moving	the	existing	mid‐yard	tracks	(Figure	3‐2).	

Together,	these	proposed	changes	comprise	the	Proposed	Action	evaluated	in	this	SEA.	

The	Proposed	Action	at	the	WPB	Rail	Yard	would	modify	the	existing	WPB	Rail	Yard	to	accommodate	

storage	and	maintenance	services	for	passenger	trains	by:	

x Adding	four	tracks	within	the	existing	WPB	Rail	Yard	for	train	refueling,	storage,	crew	change‐out,	

train	cleaning,	washing,	and	light	repairs,	which	would	include	two	storage	tracks	and	two	light	repair	

tracks.	

x Constructing	 facilities	 for	 electrical	 and	 mechanical	 rooms,	 parts	 storage,	 repair	 equipment,	

wastewater	treatment,	and	waste	storage.	

x Providing	men’s	and	women’s	restrooms,	showers,	and	locker	room	trailers.	

x Installing	a	security	fence	to	separate	passenger	operations	from	freight	movements	and	operations.	

x Expanding	parking	for	approximately	30	worker/visitor	vehicles	as	well	as	one	to	two	commercial	

vehicles.	

x Shifting	two	FECR	intermodal	tracks	and	one	stub	track	to	the	northwest	in	order	to	accommodate	

the	AAF	storage	and	maintenance	tracks.	

All	Project	improvements,	including	the	new	buildings,	will	occur	within	the	existing	footprint	of	the	WPB	

Rail	Yard.	Existing	FECR	yard	buildings	are	aligned	parallel	to	the	FECR	tracks.	The	AAF	buildings	and	

facilities,	housed	in	the	Shop	Canopy,	would	be	built	between	the	first	and	second	FECR	building.	The	

Shop	Canopy	would	include	electrical	and	mechanical	rooms;	a	fire	pump	room;	electronic	parts,	storage,	

and	repair	room;	industrial	waste	treatment;	storage;	and	sand,	grease,	motor	oil,	and	other	oil	storage.	

The	proposed	VMF	at	the	WPB	Rail	Yard	would	not	include	passenger	loading	or	unloading,	which	would	

only	occur	at	passenger	rail	stations.	

AAF	expects	that	the	number	of	light	poles	illuminating	the	WPB	Rail	Yard	would	not	change,	but	light	

poles	may	be	relocated	within	the	WPB	Rail	Yard.	Utility	poles	may	need	to	be	relocated	within	the	WPB	

Rail	Yard	and	along	the	corridor	between	the	WPB	Rail	Yard	and	the	WPB	Station.		
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Proposed Action 3‐3 October 2014

   

3.3 Train Operations and Track Improvements 

Under	existing	operations,	four	freight	trains	stop	daily	at	this	facility:	two	during	the	day	(from	7:01	AM	

to	10:00	PM)	and	two	at	night	(from	10:01	PM	to	7:00	AM).	Each	train	idles	for	approximately	45	minutes,	

which	includes	 the	 time	 the	 train	 remains	 stationary,	 the	 staging	 and	 time	 required	 for	 building	 the	

freight.		

With	the	Project,	eight	round‐trip	daily	AAF	train	sets	would	require	servicing	at	the	VMF.	Maintenance	

operations	would	occur	between	10:00	PM	and	5:00	AM,	with	the	train	sets	entering	the	VMF	between	

8:00	PM	and	10:00	PM.	Outbound	train	sets	would	exit	between	5:00	AM	and	7:00	AM.	The	train	sets	

would	consist	of	two	locomotives	and	eight	cars	and	would	operate	at	a	maximum	speed	of	20	miles	per	

hour	(mph)	along	the	majority	of	the	track,	but	would	slow	to	approximately	5	mph	when	approaching	

or	leaving	the	WPB	Rail	Yard.	During	the	day,	crew	changes	would	idle	for	a	total	of	10	minutes	while	at	

the	WPB	Rail	Yard.	Passenger	trains	are	expected	to	idle	for	no	more	than	30	minutes	for	routine	activities	

conducted	at	the	VMF,	which	are	conducted	in	both	the	daytime	and	nighttime.	

The	WPB	Rail	Yard,	the	location	of	the	proposed	VMF,	is	0.9	miles	north	of	the	WPB	Station.	Approximately	

16	passenger	train	trips	would	occur	between	the	WPB	Station	and	the	WPB	Rail	Yard	daily	(eight	trips	

northbound	and	eight	trips	southbound).	Passenger	trains	will	be	moving	at	an	average	speed	of	25	mph	on	

this	segment.	In	accordance	with	the	commitments	established	under	the	prior	FONSI,	locomotive	warning	

horns	would	be	replaced	with	stationary	wayside	horns	at	the	15th	Street	intersection	just	south	of	the	Yard	

where	severe,	unmitigated	noise	impacts	would	occur	as	a	result	of	the	Project.		

The	Project would	enhance	public	safety	with	respect	to	local	vehicular	and	pedestrian	traffic.	The	Project	

would	 upgrade	 crossing	 signal	equipment	at	 the	 four	at‐grade	 crossings	within	 the	Project	Study	Area	

(15th	 Street,	 3rd	 Street,	 Banyan	 Boulevard	 [1st	 Street],	 and	 Clematis	 Street).	 Upgraded	 crossing	 signal	

equipment	includes	devices	such	as	flashing	lights,	signage,	pavement	markings,	median	barriers,	and	four‐

quadrant	gates.	The	Project	would	also	implement	electronic	warning	systems,	which	would	monitor	and	

communicate	train	locations	and	speeds,	and	would	stop	trains	if	a	crossing	were	not	clear.	Upgrades	to	

road‐crossings	 would	 be	 coordinated	 with	 and/or	 communicated	 to	 local	 emergency	 responders,	 as	

activations	at	the	road	crossings	would	be	more	frequent	with	the	increased	frequency	of	train	traffic.		

			

   
Palm Beach Lakes Blvd alm Beach Lakes Blvd

Project # 6063-12-0212

All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project

\\vhb\proj\Orlando\61827.00 FRA NEPA Support\graphics\FIGURES\8x11portrait.indd

Existing Yard Buildings

FECR Stub Tracks 

to be removed

FECR Tracks

Explanation of Features

Proposed AAF Tracks

Fiber Optic Regen Building

Existing Fiber Optic Duct Bank

Proposed Safety Fence

Building Outline

Shop Canopy Outline

Existing FECR R/W

Limits of Asphalt Pavement

WPB Rail Yard Layout

450 Feet

3-1
Project # 6063-12-0212

All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project

\\vhb\proj\Orlando\61827.00 FRA NEPA Support\graphics\FIGURES\8x11portrait.indd

Existing Yard Buildings

FECR Stub Tracks 

to be removed

FECR Tracks

Explanation of Features

Proposed AAF Tracks

Fiber Optic Regen Building

Existing Fiber Optic Duct Bank

Proposed Safety Fence

Building Outline

Shop Canopy Outline

Existing FECR R/W

Limits of Asphalt Pavement

WPB Rail Yard Layout (south)

450 Feet

3-2
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Proposed Action 3‐6 October 2014

   

This page intentionally left blank.
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Affected Environment, Environmental 4‐1 October 2014

Consequences, and Mitigation    

4 Affected Environment, 

Environmental Consequences and 

Mitigation 

4.1 Introduction 

This	chapter	addresses	 the	affected	environment	of	 the	proposed	VMF	and	layover	 facility	associated	

with	the	AAF	Project	from	Miami	to	West	Palm	Beach.	It	also	assesses	the	likely	environmental	impacts	

associated	 with	 constructing	 and	 operating	 the	 VMF.	 The	 Council	 on	 Environmental	 Quality	 (CEQ)	

regulations	define	the	level	of	impacts	that	federal	agencies	must	address	and	consider	in	order	to	satisfy	

the	requirements	of	the	NEPA	process.7	The	CEQ	regulations	categorize	these	impacts	as	direct,	indirect,	

and	cumulative,	and	define	them	as:	

x Direct Impacts	result	from	the	proposed	action	and	occur	at	the	same	time	and	place.		

x Indirect Impacts	result	from	the	proposed	action	and	are	later	in	time	or	farther	removed	in	distance	

but	are	still	reasonably	foreseeable.	Indirect	impacts	may	include	growth‐inducing	impacts	and	other	

impacts	related	to	induced	changes	in	the	pattern	of	land	use,	population	density	or	growth	rate,	and	

related	impacts	on	air,	water,	and	other	natural	systems,	including	ecosystems.		

x Cumulative Impacts	result	from	the	combined	incremental	impacts	of	the	proposed	action	and	takes	

into	account	the	combination	of	all	the	impacts	on	a	resource,	ecosystem,	or	human	community	that	

are	directly	or	indirectly	induced	by	all	actions	over	time.	

This	SEA	only	addresses	resources	that	the	VMF	is	reasonably	likely	to	impact.	The	subject	of	this	SEA	

includes	constructing	and	operating	a	new	VMF	at	the	existing	FECR	WPB	Rail	Yard,	improving	track	and	

signal	 equipment	 between	 the	 VMF	 and	 the	 West	 Palm	 Beach	 Station,	 and	 operating	 16	 round‐trip	

passenger	trains	per	day	on	this	segment	of	track.	Table	4‐1	provides	a	list	of	resource	categories	that	this	

SEA	does	not	discuss	in	detail,	along	with	the	rationale	for	their	exclusion	based	on	the	FRA’s	Procedures

for Considering EnvironmentalImpacts(FRA	1999).		Table	4‐2	provides	the	list	of	resource	categories	that	

this	SEA	does	discuss	in	detail,	along	with	the	rationale	for	their	inclusion.	

7 40 CFR Parts 1508.7 and 1508.8 
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Affected Environment, Environmental 4‐2 October 2014

Consequences, and Mitigation    

Table 4-1 Resource Categories Not Applicable 

Category Rationale 

Water Quality No water resources occur on or near the site 

Ecological Systems Site is entirely developed and lacks natural vegetation or communities 

Wetlands No wetlands occur on or near the site 

Threatened and Endangered Species Site is entirely developed and does not provide habitat for threatened 

or endangered species 

Wildlife Site is entirely developed and does not provide habitat for wildlife 

Flood Hazards and Floodplains Site is not within a floodplain 

Coastal Zone Management Site is not within the Coastal Zone 

Aesthetic and Design Quality VMF would not change the existing aesthetics of the FECR Yard as 

seen from public streets 

Barriers to the Elderly and Handicapped Site is not accessible to the public 

Land Use Use of the existing FECR Yard would not require a change in land 

use or ownership 

Public Health Site is not accessible to the public 

Recreational Opportunities No recreational resources occur on or near the site 

Section 4(f) Properties No Section 4(f) properties (parks, recreation areas, wildlife refuges) 

occur on or adjacent to the site. 

Source: Federal Railroad Administration. Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. Federal Register 64:28545. May 26, 

1999. https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L02710. Accessed August 15, 2014. 

Table 4-2 Applicable Resource Categories 

Category Rationale 

Air Quality The Project would result in emissions from increased train traffic 

Noise and Vibration The Project would increase ambient noise and vibration levels within 

the Project Study Area 

Historic Resources Historic properties are present within the Project Study Area 

Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste Potentially contaminated sites are within and adjacent to the site 

Transportation The Project would increase average daily traffic volume and 

associated trains would pass through existing at-grade crossings 

Social and Economic Environment The Project would affect the local economy through jobs creation 

and municipal tax collections. 

Environmental Justice The Project Study Area contains minority and/or low-income populations 

Safety The Project could affect safety at grade crossings 

Energy The Project would require increased electricity consumption to 

service new buildings and power equipment 

Source: Federal Railroad Administration. Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. Federal Register 64:28545. May 26, 

1999. https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L02710. Accessed August 15, 2014. 
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Affected Environment, Environmental 4‐3 October 2014

Consequences, and Mitigation    

4.2 Air Quality 

This	section	provides	 the	baseline	air	quality	conditions	within	 the	Project	Study	Area	as	well	as	 the	

potential	impacts	 to	air	 quality	 from	 the	 operation	 of	 the	 Project.	The	air	 quality	 provisions	 that	are	

applicable	to	the	Project	include	the	1990	Clean	Air	Act	(CAA)	Amendments,8	and	the	CEQ	Regulations.	

The	CAA,	last	amended	in	1990,	requires	the	U.S.	Environmental	Protection	Agency	(EPA)	to	set	National	

Ambient	Air	Quality	Standards	(NAAQS)	for	six	“criteria”	pollutants	considered	harmful	to	public	health	

and	the	environment	(EPA	2012a).9	The	NAAQS	identify	two	types	of	air	quality	standards:	primary	and	

secondary.	 Primary	 standards	 provide	 public	 health	 protection,	 including	 protecting	 the	 health	 of	

"sensitive"	populations,	such	as	asthmatics,	children,	and	the	elderly.	Secondary	standards	provide	public	

welfare	 protection,	 including	 protection	 against	 decreased	 visibility	 and	 damage	 to	 animals,	 crops,	

vegetation,	and	buildings.		

The	concentration	of	various	pollutants	in	the	atmosphere	determines	air	quality	in	a	given	location.	The	

EPA	 established	 the	 NAAQS	 for	 criteria	 pollutants	 that	 include	 ozone	 (O3),	 carbon	 monoxide	 (CO),	

nitrogen	 dioxide	 (NO2),	 sulfur	 dioxide	 (SO2),	 particulate	 matter	 equal	 to	 or	 less	 than	 ten	 microns	 in	

diameter	(PM10)	and	2.5	microns	in	diameter	(PM2.5),	and	lead	(Pb).	The	NAAQS	represent	the	maximum	

levels	of	background	pollution	considered	safe,	with	an	adequate	margin	of	safety,	to	protect	public	health	

and	welfare.	Transportation	sources,	particularly	motor	vehicles,	are	the	primary	sources	of	CO,	oxides	

of	nitrogen,	and	hydrocarbons	also	known	as	volatile	organic	compounds	(VOCs).		

The	 CAA	 Amendments	 place	 most	 of	 the	 responsibility	 to	 achieve	 compliance	 with	 the	 NAAQS	 on	

individual	states.	Therefore,	the	EPA	requires	each	state	to	prepare	a	State	Implementation	Plan	(SIP).	A	

SIP	is	a	compilation	of	goals,	strategies,	schedules,	and	enforcement	actions	that	would	lead	the	state	into	

compliance	with	all	NAAQS.	The	EPA	or	the	appropriate	state	or	local	agency	can	declare	areas	not	in	

compliance	with	a	standard	as	nonattainment.	In	order	to	reach	attainment,	NAAQS	exceedances	may	not	

occur	more	than	once	per	year.	A	nonattainment	area	can	reach	attainment	when	they	meet	the	NAAQS	

for	a	period	of	ten	consecutive	years.		

4.2.1 Affected Environment 

The	Project	is	located	in	an	attainment	area	for	all	criteria	pollutants,	pursuant	to	the	CAA	Amendments	

(EPA	2012b).		

4.2.2 Environmental Consequences 

This	evaluation	includes	the	calculation	of	air	pollutant	emissions	resulting	from	the	operation	of	the	Project	

to	determine	if	the	Project	would	result	in	either	beneficial	or	adverse	impacts	to	air	quality	as	required	by	

the	CAA	Amendments.	The	associated	analysis	included	potential	emissions	(estimated)	from	passenger	

train	engines	operating	on	the	main	line	and	turning	into	the	WPB	Rail	Yard,	and	the	following	assumptions:		

x Maintenance	trip	distance	–	0.9	mile;	

8 42 U.S.C. § 7401, et. seq. 

9 40 CFR Part 50 
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Affected Environment, Environmental 4‐4 October 2014

Consequences, and Mitigation    

x Round	trip	distance	for	each	passenger	engine	serviced	–	1.8	miles;	

x Engine	speed	over	the	transit	distance	–	15	mph	(average);	

x Emission	factors	–	Tier	4	Line	Haul	locomotive;	

x Engine	horsepower	–	4,000;	

x Number	of	trains	serviced	per	day	–	5	train	sets;	

x Total	estimated	travel	time	for	all	trains/day	–	1.6	hr./day;	and	

x Number	of	train	sets	to	access	or	leave	yard	–	16.	

Emissions	from	increased	train	traffic	associated	with	the	Project	would	result	in	less	than	1	ton	per	year	

of	 any	 pollutant	 (Table	 4‐3)	 (AMEC	 2014a).	 Therefore,	 the	 Project	 would	 not	 result	 in	 a	 significant	

increase	in	air	pollution	emissions	nor	would	it	significantly	reduce	the	beneficial	impacts	of	the	overall	

Phase	I	project	by	reducing	emissions	from	vehicle	traffic	from	roadways	as	described	in	the	Phase	I	EA.	

Table 4-3 Calculated Projected Emissions Associated with the Project 

Air Pollutant 

Emissions 

(tons per year) 

Carbon Oxide (CO) 0.923 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 0.721 

Particle Pollution (PM2.5) 0.010 

Particle Pollution (PM10) 0.011 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 0.000 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 0.030 

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 0.000 

Methane (CH4) 0.000 

Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.000 

Source: AMEC. 2014a. Addendum to Environmental Assessment Reevaluation of Potential Environmental Impacts of the Proposed West 

Palm Beach Rail Yard for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project from West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. July 2014. 

In	 the	2012	EA,	 the	 original	location	 for	 the	VMF	 (Andrews	Yard	in	 Fort	 Lauderdale),	would	require	

approximately	30	miles	of	travel	before	AAF	trains	would	go	into	revenue	service.	In	comparison,	the	

WPB	Rail	Yard	would	require	only	0.9	miles	of	travel	before	AAF	trains	go	into	revenue	service.	Reduced	

travel	time	associated	with	the	WPM	Rail	Yard	would	result	in	significantly	lower	pollutant	emissions.	

Although	the	Project	would	result	in	increased	pollutant	emissions	near	the	WPM	Rail	Yard,	the	Project	

would	result	in	less	pollutant	emissions	overall	compared	to	the	2012	EA	conditions.	

As	the	Project	is	located	in	an	attainment	area	for	all	criteria	pollutants	(EPA	2012b),	pursuant	to	the	CAA	

Amendments,	a	determination	of	conformity	with	the	SIP	or	plan	to	maintain	the	NAAQS	is	not	required.	

Pursuant	 to	 this	 exclusion,	 a	 development,	 or	 select	 analysis,	 of	 emissions	 inventories	 of	 criteria	

pollutants	of	the	Project	is	not	necessary	for	General	Conformity	determination	purposes.	
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Affected Environment, Environmental 4‐5 October 2014

Consequences, and Mitigation    

4.3 Noise and Vibration 

This	section	presents	background	on	fundamentals	and	metrics	used	to	describe	noise	and	vibration	and	

characterizes	 existing	 and	 future	 noise	 and	 vibration	 conditions.	 Noise	 and	 vibration	 are	 assessed	

according	to	guidelines	specified	in	FRA’s	High‐Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact

Assessment	 guidance	 manual,	 the	 Federal	 Transit	 Administration’s	 (FTA)	Noise and Vibration Impact

Assessment	guidance	manual,	and	the	Federal	Highway	Administration	(FHWA)	guidelines	as	defined	for	

Florida	application	by	FDOT	for	traffic	operations (FRA	2012;	FTA	2006;	FDOT	2011).	

Noise 

Noise	is	defined	as	unwanted	sound	or,	more	specifically,	a	sound	that	is	undesirable	because	it	interferes	

with	communication	or	is	annoying	(EPA	1976).	Human	response	to	noise	can	vary	according	to	the	type	

and	 characteristics	 of	 the	 noise	 source,	 the	 distance	 between	 the	 noise	 source	 and	 the	 receptor,	 the	

sensitivity	of	the	receptor,	and	the	time	of	day.	

Due	to	the	wide	range	of	sound	levels	that	commonly	exist	in	the	environment,	sound	is	expressed	in	

decibels	(dB),	a	unit	of	measure	based	on	a	logarithmic	scale.	A	10‐dB	increase	in	noise	level	corresponds	

to	a	doubling	in	perceived	loudness.	Sound	levels	are	typically	measured	and	reported	according	to	the	

A‐weighted	decibel	(dBA),	which	relates	to	the	human	response	to	sound	at	different	frequencies.	The	

frequency	of	sound	is	measured	in	Hertz	(Hz).	Humans	can	normally	detect	sounds	ranging	from	about	

20	to	15,000	Hz.	“A‐weighting”	adjusts	the	sound	level	at	different	frequencies	to	approximate	the	human	

ear’s	sensitivity	because	sounds	are	not	heard	equally	well.	Humans	are	most	sensitive	to	frequencies	in	

the	1,000	to	4,000	Hz	range.	A‐weighted	sound	levels	are	commonly	used	in	measurement	of	community	

environmental	noise.	Unless	otherwise	noted,	all	decibel	measurements	presented	in	this	noise	analysis	

are	dBA.	Figure	4‐1	provides	an	example	of	the	types	of	activities	that	result	in	varying	degrees	of	sound	

levels	in	dBA.	

Environmental	 noise	 fluctuates	 over	 time,	 so	 noise	 levels	 over	 a	 stated	 period	 of	 time	 (1	 hour)	 are	

commonly	represented	by	the	“equivalent	sound	level,”	Leq.	The	“day‐night	average”	sound	level	(Ldn)	

is	a	noise	metric	that	represents	the	equivalent	sound	energy	over	a	24‐hour	period,	with	a	10‐dB	penalty	

added	to	noise	events	occurring	between	10:00	PM	and	7:00	AM.	This	penalty	is	intended	to	compensate	

for	generally	lower	background	noise	levels	at	night	and	 the	additional	annoyance	of	nighttime	noise	

events.	Ldn	takes	into	account	how	loud	noise	events	are,	how	long	they	last,	how	often	they	occur,	and	

whether	they	occur	during	the	day	or	night.	

FRA	 and	 FTA	 guidelines	 separate	 noise‐sensitive	 land	 uses	 into	 categories	 based	 on	 sensitivity	

(FTA	2006).	Buildings	where	nighttime	sensitivity	to	noise	is	important	are	defined	as	Category	2,	and	

include	 homes,	 hospitals,	 and	 hotels.	 The	 noise	 metric	 used	 for	 Category	 2	 land	 uses	 is	 Ldn,	 which	

describes	 the	 average	 24‐hour	 noise	 environment	 with	 emphasis	 given	 to	 noise	 generated	 during	

nighttime	hours	(10:00	PM	to	7:00	AM).	Category	3	land	uses	include	institutional	facilities	that	are	used	

primarily	during	daytime	and	evening	hours,	such	as	schools,	libraries,	theaters,	places	of	worship,	and	

certain	historical	sites	and	parks.	The	noise	metric	used	for	Category	3	land	uses	is	the	loudest‐hour	Leq	

which	occurs	during	the	times	that	the	location	is	being	used	(such	as	the	hours	during	church	services).	
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Affected Environment, Environmental 4‐6 October 2014

Consequences, and Mitigation    

The	noise	analysis	was	performed	 for	Category	2	and	Category	3	noise‐sensitive	land	uses	within	the	

vicinity	of	the	Project	Area	(no	Category	1	land	uses10	were	identified).	

Figure 4-1 Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments 

Source: Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. USDOT Report Number FTA-VA-90-

1003-06, May 2006. 

Vibration 

Vibration	is	the	oscillating	motion	of	a	structure	or	material	that	can	result	in	the	perceptible	movement	

of	building	floors,	rattling	of	windows,	shaking	of	items	on	shelves,	and	rumbling	sounds.	Vibration	may	

be	described	in	 terms	of	 the	acceleration,	 velocity,	or	displacement	 that	occurs	during	 the	oscillatory	

10 Category 1 land uses include areas where quiet is an essential element in their intended purpose, such as land set aside for serenity and 

quiet, outdoor amphitheaters, concert pavilions, recording studios, concert halls, and National Historic Landmarks with significant outdoor use. 
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Affected Environment, Environmental 4‐7 October 2014

Consequences, and Mitigation    

motion	(FTA	2006).	For	describing	the	human	response	to	vibration,	the	vibration	velocity	expressed	in	

decibels	 (VdB)	with	a	reference	value	of	one	micro‐inch	per	second	is	used.	The	vibration	levels	 that	

commonly	exist	in	the	environment	range	from	approximately	40	to	100	VdB.	At	low	amplitude,	vibration	

may	interfere	with	sensitive	equipment.	At	higher	amplitude,	vibration	may	be	perceptible	to	humans	

and	 cause	 annoyance.	 At	 very	 high	 amplitude,	 vibration	 can	 cause	 damage	 to	 susceptible	 buildings.	

Figure	4	‐2	depicts	typical	levels	of	ground‐borne	vibration.	

Figure 4-2 Typical Levels of Ground-Borne Vibration 

Source: Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. USDOT Report Number FTA-VA-90-

1003-06, May 2006. 
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Affected Environment, Environmental 4‐8 October 2014

Consequences, and Mitigation    

Vibration	that	propagates	into	buildings	can	cause	the	floors,	walls,	and	ceilings	of	a	room	to	radiate	sound	

called	ground‐borne	noise	(GBN).	GBN	normally	is	characterized	as	a	low‐frequency	‘rumbling’	sound.	

GBN	is	often	not	a	concern	for	at‐grade	transit	sources	and	buildings	with	windows	and	doors	exposed	to	

the	transit	sources	because	the	contribution	of	noise	from	airborne	paths	can	be	more	significant	than	

the	contribution	of	GBN.	

Figure	4‐3	depicts	the	basic	concept	of	ground‐borne	vibration	and	GBN	for	a	rail	system.	When	train	

wheels	roll	on	rails,	the	forces	between	the	wheels	and	the	rails	generate	vibration	that	is	transmitted	

through	the	rails,	rail	bed,	and	soils	into	building	structures.	How	efficiently	vibration	propagates	into	

adjacent	buildings	is	dependent	upon	the	operating	conditions	and	type	of	train,	the	track	design,	the	

geologic	characteristics	of	the	surrounding	soil,	and	the	construction	of	the	building.		

Figure 4-3 Propagation of Ground-Borne Vibration and Ground-Borne Noise into Buildings 

Source: Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. USDOT Report Number FTA-VA-90-

1003-06, May 2006. 
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Affected Environment, Environmental 4‐9 October 2014

Consequences, and Mitigation    

Methodology 

The	Project	Area	assessed	in	this	report	includes	the	WPB	Rail	Yard	and	the	mainline	corridor	between	

the	WPB	Rail	Yard	and	the	proposed	WPB	Passenger	Station	to	the	south.	Noise	modeling	was	completed	

in	order	to	understand	the	existing	and	future	conditions.	The	modeling	analysis,	provided	in	its	entirety	

in	Appendix	B,	provides:		

x A	comparison	of	modeled	and	observed	noise	levels	at	four	monitoring	locations	around	the	WPB	

Rail	Yard	to	validate	the	modeling	approach;	

x An	updated	noise	impact	analysis	of	21	noise‐sensitive	receptors	located	adjacent	to	the	Project	Area;	

x Observed	 vibration	 levels	 at	 two	 locations	 around	 the	 WPB	 Rail	 Yard	 to	 establish	 site‐specific	

vibration	sources	and	propagation	conditions;	and		

x An	updated	vibration	impact	analysis.	

Noise	and	vibration	monitoring	was	conducted	at	four	locations	in	order	to	verify	the	existing	conditions	

that	 were	 modeled.	 Three	 of	 the	 monitoring	 locations	 were	 on	 the	 west	 side	 of	 the	WPB	 Rail	 Yard	

(North	 End,	 Middle,	 and	 South	 end)	 and	 better	 represent	 the	 WPB	 Rail	 Yard	 activities.	 A	 fourth	

monitoring	location	to	the	East	better	captured	the	mainline	train	traffic	(see	Figure	4‐4).	

The	results	of	the	noise	monitoring	correlated	with	the	noise	model.	Minor	differences	between	observed	

and	modeled	noise	levels	at	each	monitoring	location	were	due	to	the	average	WPB	Rail	Yard	conditions	

obtained	during	the	limited	monitoring	period	(24	hours).		

The	results	of	the	vibration	monitoring	identified	existing	vibration	levels	associated	with	current	freight	

use	along	the	mainline	currently	exceed	FTA	impact	criteria	in	several	locations.	The	existing	condition	

vibration	 levels	 were	 calculated	 based	 on	 the	 use	 of	 the	 revised	 model.	 The	 future	 conditions	 were	

modeled	based	on	the	FTA	model.		

4.3.1 Affected Environment 

4.3.1.1 Noise 

Existing	 noise	 conditions	 are	 from	 current	 FECR	 freight	 operations	 occurring	 at	 the	WPB	 Rail	 Yard.	

Approximately	14	freight	trains	per	day	operate	on	the	main	line.	Freight	trains	are	on	average	8,150	feet	

in	length,	and	consist	of	two	locomotives	(89	feet	each)	and	101	rail	cars	(79	feet	each).	Approximately	

half	of	the	freight	operations	occur	at	night	(10:00	PM	to	7:00	AM)	and	half	during	the	day	(7:00	AM	to	

10:00	PM)	(FRA	n.d.).	The	average	train	speed	along	the	portion	of	main	line	adjacent	to	the	WPB	Rail	

Yard	is	42	mph.	Noise	sources	included	train	activity	on	the	intermodal	track,	auxiliary	equipment	at	the	

WPB	Rail	Yard,	and	vehicular	traffic	on	Division	Avenue	and	15th	Avenue	East.	

A	noise	impact	analysis	was	completed	for	Category	2	and	Category	3	noise‐sensitive	land	uses	within	the	

vicinity	of	the	Project	(no	Category	1	land	uses	were	identified).	The	impact	analysis	for	Category	2	land	

uses	was	performed	by	identifying	clusters	and	selecting	a	representative	parcel,	or	receptor,	in	each	of	the	

17	clusters	identified,	and	modeling	existing	Ldn	noise	impacts.	Four	churches	were	identified	as	Category	3	

land	uses	and	existing	Leq(h)	noise	levels	were	modeled	at	each	church.	Land	use	clusters	are	shown	in	

Figure	4‐4;	which	also	includes	the	location	of	the	noise	monitors	that	validated	the	noise	modeling.		
^_

^_

^_

^_

^_

^_^_

^_

^_

^_

^_

^_

^_ ^_

^_

^_

^_

^_

^_

^_

^_

^_

VM2

VM1

NM4

NM3

NM2

NM1 Cluster 1

Cluster 9

Cluster 4

Cluster 3

Cluster 2

Cluster 17

Cluster 16

Cluster 15

Cluster 14

Cluster 13

Cluster 12

Cluster 11

Cluster 10

Church 2

Church 4

Church 1

Monitoring and Cluster Locations

Figure  ̄

Path: P:\EAT\2012\PROJECTS\All Aboard Florida\NEPA EIS\ORL to MIA EIS\Technical Memo 5-Noise and Vibration\GIS\Westford\Task1\Task1\MXD\WPB Yard - Monitoring and Cluster Locations.mxd

Project # 6063-12-0212

All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project

0 450 Feet

Data Sources: ESRI 2012, FRA 2012, FGDL 2012, AMEC 2014.

Corridor Centerline

Explanation of Features

Existing FECR R/W

^_ Noise Monitoring Location Existing Yard Building

2

^_ Vibration Monitoring Location

Category 2 Receptors – Clusters

Category 2 Parcel

^_ Church

^_ Category 2 Representative Receptor

Category 3 Receptors – Churches

4-4
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Affected Environment, Environmental 4‐11 October 2014

Consequences, and Mitigation    

The	noise	sources	modeled	and	the	resulting	noise	impacts	at	each	land	use	cluster	location	are	provided	

in	Table	4‐4.	This	table	shows	that	existing	noise	conditions	among	the	residential	cluster	land	uses	range	

from	62	to	78	Ldn.	

Table 4-4 Existing Condition Noise Impacts (Ldn) by Cluster Location 

Existing Source 

Cluster 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 

Fixed-Guideway Sources (Mainline) 

Mainline Away 

from Yard - - - - 62.0 64.2 65.0 67.0 71.5 71.5 61.7 - - - - - - 

Mainline Away 

from Yard – WH1 - - - - - - - - 77.3 77.3 67.5 - - - - - - 

Mainline Near Yard 70.0 71.0 62.6 60.6 - - - - - - - 63.5 60.8 54.7 54.9 59.2 62.1

Mainline Near Yard 

- WH 75.8 76.8 68.4 66.4 - - - - - - - 69.3 66.6 60.5 60.7 65.0 67.9

North Siding 57.6 58.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - 46.1 50.8 54.3

North Siding - WH 65.6 66.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - 54.1 58.8 62.3

South Siding - - 52.9 51.0 - - - - - - - 55.9 47.4 45.9 - - - 

South Siding - WH - - 60.9 59.0 - - - - - - - 63.9 55.4 53.9 - - - 

Intermodal Track 51.3 49.2 52.3 - - - - - - - - 55.9 47.9 49.7 50.3 55.9 58.5

Highway/Transit Sources 

Automobile - - - - - - - - - - - - - 59.7 59.7 - - 

Stationary Sources (Yard) 

Idling - Siding 58.0 58.9 47.5 43.1 - - - - - - - 42.0 44.4 38.5 38.8 46.7 52.5

Idling - 

Intermodal Track 47.5 43.9 47.5 42.0 - - - - - - - 45.1 47.5 44.8 45.9 55.1 59.5

Auxiliary 

Equipment - 

General 

47.1 48.7 40.7 37.4 - - - - - - - 42.5 45.2 47.8 49.3 55.3 46.2

Auxiliary 

Equipment - 

North Side 

62.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 58.0 59.1

 

Total 77 78 70 68 62 64 65 67 78 78 69 72 68 65 65 68 71 

Source: AMEC. 2014. All Aboard Florida Proposed West Palm Beach Rail Yard Response to Questions. September 2014. 

1 WH indicates contribution from warning horn 

4.3.1.2 Vibration 

Based	on	the	monitoring	results	provided	in	Appendix	B,	the	vibration	impact	analysis	was	updated	by	

making	appropriate	adjustments	to	the	measured	vibration	levels.	A	vibration	curve	was	established	for	

the	 vibration	levels	 observed	at	location	VM2	 (see	 Figure	 4‐4).	 Figure	 4‐5	 shows	 the	 curve	 that	was	

established,	as	well	as	the	second	degree	polynomial	equation	that	was	fitted	to	the	curve	in	order	to	

calculate	vibration	levels	at	intermediate	distances.	For	distances	greater	than	160	ft,	it	was	assumed	that	

baseline	vibration	level	was	74	VdB.	
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Affected Environment, Environmental 4‐12 October 2014

Consequences, and Mitigation    

Figure 4-5 Vibration Curve 

Source: AMEC, All Aboard Florida Proposed West Palm Beach Rail Yard Noise and Vibration Supplemental Assessment Report, 

September 2014. 

Using	the	vibration	curve	above,	the	residential	and	recreational	land	use	clusters	identified	 for	noise	

were	used	to	determine	vibration	levels	at	vibration‐sensitive	receptors.	For	each	land	use	cluster,	the	

most	significant	vibration	source	was	considered.		

Currently	14	freight	train	events	(10	mainline	and	4	WPB	Rail	Yard	inbound/outbound)	regularly	occur	

near	 the	 Project.	 Therefore,	 current	 conditions	 were	 assessed	 using	 Infrequent	 Events	 criteria	 to	

determine	the	impact	at	each	land	use	cluster	or	receptor.		

Using	 the	 vibration	 curve	 given	 in	 Figure	 4‐5,	 additional	 adjustments	 were	 made	 to	 account	 for	

differences	in	operating	speed.	The	impact	analysis	results	 for	the	current	operations	are	provided	in	

Table	4‐5,	along	with	applicable	impact	criteria.	Vibration	levels	that	exceed	the	Infrequent	Events	criteria	

are	shown	in	bold	and	italics.11

11 “Infrequent Events" is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day. USDOT Report Number FTA-VA-90-1003-06, 

section 8.1.1, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006. 
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Affected Environment, Environmental 4‐13 October 2014

Consequences, and Mitigation    

Table 4-5 Existing Vibration Levels 

Cluster/ 

Church 

Existing Vibration Impact Assessment 

Source 

Speed 

(mph) 

Distance 

(ft)1

Infrequent 

Criteria 

Occasional 

Criteria 

Frequent 

Criteria 

Vibration 

Level 

VdB (re 1E-6 in/s) 

1 Mainline 42 70 80 75 72 88 

2 Mainline 42 60 80 75 72 91 

3 Mainline 42 220 80 75 72 77 

4 Mainline 42 295 80 75 72 77 

5 Mainline 42 300 80 75 72 77 

6 Mainline 42 215 80 75 72 77 

7 Mainline 42 190 80 75 72 77 

8 Mainline 42 70 80 75 72 88 

9 Mainline 42 70 80 75 72 88 

10 Mainline 42 70 80 75 72 88 

11 Mainline 42 315 80 75 72 77 

12 Mainline 42 190 80 75 72 77 

13 Mainline 42 290 80 75 72 77 

14 Intermodal 5 385 80 75 72 58 

15 Intermodal 5 350 80 75 72 58 

16 Intermodal 5 150 80 75 72 59 

17 Intermodal 5 100 80 75 72 64 

Church 1 Mainline 42 165 83 78 75 77 

Church 2 Mainline 42 200 83 78 75 77 

Church 3 Mainline 42 215 83 78 75 77 

Church 4 Mainline 42 300 83 78 75 77 

Source: AMEC. 2014. All Aboard Florida Proposed West Palm Beach Rail Yard Noise and Vibration Supplemental Assessment 

Report. September 2014. 

1 For distances outside the range of the baseline curve (> 160 ft) a value of 74 VdB was assumed 

4.3.2 Environmental Consequences 

4.3.2.1 Noise 

The	 Proposed	 Action	 would	 be	 implemented	 within	 a	 developed	 urban	 region	 with	 inherently	 high	

ambient	noise	levels,	due	to	the	existing	rail	yard	operations	and	the	proximity	to	the	FECR	Corridor.	As	

a	result	of	the	Project,	passenger	rail	operations	would	be	added	to	the	existing	FRA	freight	operations,	

resulting	in	increased	noise	levels	at	the	WPB	Rail	Yard	and	along	the	0.9	miles	of	track	between	the	WPB	

train	station	and	the	VMF.	It	was	conservatively	assumed	that	future	condition	modeling	should	include	

the	following	operations	as	a	result	of	the	Project:	

x Mainline	Away	from	Yard:	12	trains/day,	4	trains/night,	throttle	<	6,	speed	20	mph,	2	locos,	8	cars	
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Affected Environment, Environmental 4‐14 October 2014

Consequences, and Mitigation    

x Mainline	 Away	 from	 Yard	 with	Warning	 Horn:	 12	 trains/day,	 4	 trains/night,	 throttle	 <	 6,	 speed	

20	mph,	2	locos,	8	cars,	warning	horn	

x Yard	Inbound/Outbound	–	South:	12	trains/day,	4	trains/night,	throttle	<	6,	speed	5	mph,	2	locos,	

8	cars,	warning	horn	

x Idling:	8	trains/day,	4	trains/night,	30	minutes	of	idling	per	train	

For	clusters	16	and	17,	the	additional	noise	created	by	the	proposed	intermodal	track	alignment	was	also	

taken	 into	 account	 in	 the	 modeling.	 However,	 based	 on	 the	 absence	 of	 wheel	 squeal	 from	 freight	

operations	 along	 the	 curves	 of	 existing	 intermodal	 tracks	 during	 the	 monitoring	 effort,	 and	 that	 the	

proposed	intermodal	 tracks	have	curve	radii	(approximately	400‐feet)	equal	 to	or	greater	 than	curve	

radii	of	the	existing	intermodal	tracks	(approximately	400‐feet),	wheel	squeal	associated	with	existing	or	

proposed	operations	along	intermodal	tracks	was	not	included	in	the	modeling.	

Future	condition	noise	levels	were	modeled	using	the	same	approach	as	existing,	with	updated	inputs	to	

include	 the	 additional	 operations	 that	 would	 occur	 as	 a	 result	 of	 the	 Project.	 Table	 4‐6	 details	 the	

individual	noise	sources	anticipated	 from	the	Project.	The	noise	analysis	assumed	that	train‐mounted	

horns	would	be	used	on	 the	approach	 to	grade	crossings	in	order	 to	determine	where	pole‐mounted	

horns	would	be	installed,	consistent	with	AAF’s	commitment	to	use	pole‐mounted	horns	at	all	locations	

where	severe	noise	impacts	would	occur.	

The	 noise	 assessment	 reported	 that	 FTA	 impact	 criteria	 was	 exceeded	 at	 several	 locations,	 mainly	

associated	with	FRA‐mandated	train	horn	activation	at	nearby	intersections	on	the	mainline	track.		The	

anticipated	operational	noise	impacts	would	result	from	ongoing	FECR	freight	operations,	project‐related	

noise,	and	existing	background	noise.	Increases	in	noise	levels	would	primarily	result	from	using	warning	

horns	at	grade	crossings.	Accordingly,	stationary	wayside	horns	would	replace	locomotive	warning	horns	

at	 the	15th	Street	intersection	just	 south	 of	 the	WPB	Rail	Yard	in	 order	 to	eliminate	 the	 severe	noise	

impacts	identified	at	Clusters	9,	10,	and	12.	Results	from	the	impact	analysis	using	train‐mounted	horns	

are	provided	in	Table	4‐7;	results	using	pole‐mounted	horns	are	provided	in	Table	4‐8.	Using	stationary	

wayside	warning	horns	(rather	than	the	warning	horns	on	the	locomotives)	would	reduce	the	impacts	to	

a	Moderate	Impact	to	eight	Category	2	parcels.	

Table 4-6 Noise Modeling Inputs from Proposed Passenger Operations 

Source Description 

Fixed-Guideway Sources 

Mainline Away From Yard 12 trains/day, 4 trains/night, throttle < 6, speed 20 mph, 2 locos, 8 cars 

Mainline Away From Yard - WH 12 trains/day, 4 trains/night, throttle < 6, speed 20 mph, 2 locos, 8 cars, warning horn 

Yard I/O - South 12 trains/day, 4 trains/night, throttle < 6, speed 5 mph, 2 locos, 8 cars, warning horn 

Stationary Sources 

Idling 8 trains/day, 4 trains/night, 30 minutes of idling per train 

Source: AMEC. 2014. All Aboard Florida Proposed West Palm Beach Rail Yard Noise and Vibration Supplemental Assessment 

Report. September 2014. 
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Affected Environment, Environmental 4‐15 October 2014

Consequences, and Mitigation    

Table 4-7 Results of Noise Impact Analysis – Train Mounted Warning Horns 

Cluster/ 

Receptor 

Existing 

Noise 

Level 

Project 

Noise 

Level 

Impact Criteria Impact 

Category 

Total 

Noise 

Level 

Noise 

Level 

Increase 

# of Impacts 

Moderate Severe Moderate Severe 

Category 2 Land Uses – Noise Exposure in Ldn 

Cluster 1 77 68 65 75 Moderate 78 1 2 0 

Cluster 2 78 69 65 75 Moderate 79 1 4 0 

Cluster 3 70 68 64 70 Moderate 72 2 4 0 

Cluster 4 68 67 63 68 Moderate 71 3 2 0 

Cluster 5 62 55 59 64 No Impact 63 1 0 0 

Cluster 6 64 57 60 66 No Impact 65 1 0 0 

Cluster 7 65 58 61 66 No Impact 66 1 0 0 

Cluster 8 67 60 62 67 No Impact 68 1 0 0 

Cluster 9 78 76 65 75 Severe 80 2 0 2 

Cluster 10 78 76 65 75 Severe 80 2 0 3 

Cluster 11 68 66 63 68 Moderate 70 2 2 0 

Cluster 12 71 73 65 71 Severe 75 4 0 3 

Cluster 13 68 64 63 68 Moderate 69 1 3 0 

Cluster 14 64 64 60 66 Moderate 67 3 6 0 

Cluster 15 65 64 61 66 Moderate 68 3 6 0 

Cluster 161 68 58 -- -- Moderate 71 3 3 0 

Cluster 171 71 54 -- -- Moderate 72 1 2 0 

Totals 34 8 

Category 3 Land Uses – Noise Exposure in Leq(day) 

Church 1 65 58 66 71 No Impact 66 1 0 0 

Church 2 58 57 62 67 No Impact 60 2 0 0 

Church 3 63 64 64 70 No Impact 67 4 0 0 

Church 4 55 59 60 66 No Impact 61 6 0 0 

Source: AMEC. 2014. All Aboard Florida Proposed West Palm Beach Rail Yard Noise and Vibration Supplemental Assessment 

Report. September 2014. 

1 Impact determination made based on comparison of cumulative noise exposure increase to existing noise, Figure 3-2 of FTA 

Manual. Cumulative noise exposure (“Total Noise Level”) calculated as the sum of Project Noise Level and a revised Existing 

Noise Level that takes into account the realignment of the Intermodal Track. Revised Existing Noise Level not shown in Table. 
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Affected Environment, Environmental 4‐16 October 2014

Consequences, and Mitigation    

Table 4-8 Results of Noise Impact Analysis – Pole-Mounted Warning Horns 

Cluster/ 

Receptor 

Existing 

Noise 

Level 

Project 

Noise 

Level 

Impact Criteria Impact 

Category 

Total 

Noise 

Level 

Noise 

Level 

Increase 

# of Impacts 

Moderate Severe Moderate Severe 

Category 2 Land Uses – Noise Exposure in Ldn 

Cluster 1 77 63 65 75 No Impact 78 1 0 0 

Cluster 2 78 63 65 75 No Impact 78 0 0 0 

Cluster 3 70 62 64 70 No Impact 71 1 0 0 

Cluster 4 68 61 63 68 No Impact 69 1 0 0 

Cluster 5 62 55 59 64 No Impact 63 1 0 0 

Cluster 6 64 57 60 66 No Impact 65 1 0 0 

Cluster 7 65 58 61 66 No Impact 66 1 0 0 

Cluster 8 67 60 62 67 No Impact 68 1 0 0 

Cluster 9 78 65 65 75 No Impact 78 0 0 0 

Cluster 10 78 65 65 75 No Impact 78 0 0 0 

Cluster 11 68 55 63 68 No Impact 69 1 0 0 

Cluster 12 71 67 65 71 Moderate 73 2 3 0 

Cluster 13 68 58 63 68 No Impact 68 0 0 0 

Cluster 14 64 58 60 66 No Impact 65 1 0 0 

Cluster 15 65 59 61 66 No Impact 66 1 0 0 

Cluster 161 68 58 -- -- Moderate 71 3 3 0 

Cluster 171 71 54 -- -- Moderate 72 1 2 0 

Totals 8 0 

Category 3 Land Uses – Noise Exposure in Leq(day) 

Church 1 65 52 66 71 No Impact 65 0 0 0 

Church 2 58 51 62 67 No Impact 59 1 0 0 

Church 3 63 53 64 70 No Impact 63 0 0 0 

Church 4 55 53 60 66 No Impact 57 2 0 0 

Source: AMEC. 2014. All Aboard Florida Proposed West Palm Beach Rail Yard Noise and Vibration Supplemental Assessment 

Report. September 2014. 

1 Impact determination made based on comparison of cumulative noise exposure increase to existing noise, Figure 3-2 of FTA 

Manual. Cumulative noise exposure (“Total Noise Level”) calculated as the sum of Project Noise Level and a revised Existing 

Noise Level that takes into account the realignment of the Intermodal Track. Revised Existing Noise Level not shown in Table. 

4.3.2.2 Vibration 

Vibration	impact	assessments	were	performed	for	the	section	of	track	between	the	WPB	Rail	Yard	and	

WPB	Station	where	operating	speeds	will	average	approximately	15	mph,	with	a	maximum	of	20	mph.	

Any	 slower,	 and	 vibration	impacts	 from	 passenger	 trains	 would	 be	 negligible.	 For	 future	 operations	

impact	analysis,	the	FTA	model	for	ground‐borne	vibrations	was	used.	
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Affected Environment, Environmental 4‐17 October 2014

Consequences, and Mitigation    

The	 future	condition	vibration	impacts,	which	include	 the	passenger	rail	operations,	are	presented	in	

Table	4‐9	for	each	land	use	cluster	and	receptor.	Based	on	these	results,	no	parcels	experience	additional	

vibration	events	that	exceed	the	Occasional	Events	criteria.12

Table 4-9 Future Condition Vibration Levels 

Cluster/ 

Church 

Project Vibration Impact Assessment 

Source2

Speed 

(mph) 

Distance 

(ft)1

Infrequent 

Criteria 

Occasional 

Criteria 

Frequent 

Criteria 

Vibration 

Level 

VdB (re 1E-6 in/s) 

1 Mainline 5 70 80 75 72 63 

2 Mainline 5 60 80 75 72 64 

3 Mainline 5 220 80 75 72 50 

4 Mainline 20 295 80 75 72 63 

5 Mainline 20 300 80 75 72 63 

6 Mainline 20 215 80 75 72 62 

7 Mainline 20 190 80 75 72 63 

8 Mainline 20 70 80 75 72 75 

9 Mainline 20 70 80 75 72 75 

10 Mainline 20 70 80 75 72 75 

11 Mainline 20 315 80 75 72 64 

12 Mainline 20 190 80 75 72 63 

13 Mainline 20 290 80 75 72 63 

14 Yard 5 385 80 75 72 58 

15 Yard 5 350 80 75 72 54 

16 Intermodal 5 55 80 75 72 73 

17 Intermodal 5 55 80 75 72 73 

Church 1 Mainline 20 165 83 78 75 65 

Church 2 Mainline 20 200 83 78 75 63 

Church 3 Mainline 20 215 83 78 75 62 

Church 4 Mainline 20 300 83 78 75 63 

Source: AMEC. 2014. All Aboard Florida Proposed West Palm Beach Rail Yard Noise and Vibration Supplemental Assessment 

Report. September 2014. 

1 For distances outside the range of the baseline curve (> 160 ft) a baseline value of 74 VdB was assumed. 

2 For Clusters 16 and 17, the source is assumed to be the revised intermodal track servicing freight traffic, 4-trains per day, 

thus “Infrequent Criteria” is appropriate. A +8 VdB adjustment was made due to primary stiff suspension usually considered 

for freight trains. 

12 “Occasional Events” is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day. USDOT Report Number FTA-VA-90-

1003-06, section 8.1.1, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006. 
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Affected Environment, Environmental 4‐18 October 2014

Consequences, and Mitigation    

4.4 Cultural Resources 

Cultural	resources,	as	defined	by	the	National	Historic	Preservation	Act	of	1966	(NHPA),13	as	amended,	

are	any	“districts,	sites,	buildings,	structures,	and	objects	significant	in	American	history,	architecture,	

archeology,	engineering	and	culture”	(NPS	1981).		Cultural	resources	are	both	above	and	below	ground.	

Archaeological	sites	or	resources	represent	the	locations	of	prehistoric	or	historic	activities.	The	term	

“historic	 structures”	 includes	 houses,	 buildings,	 bridges,	 and	 constructed	 features	 that,	 with	 few	

exceptions,	 are	 at	 least	 50	 years	 old.	Historic	 landscapes	 consist	 of	 culturally	 modified	 lands.	 Linear	

historic	resources	can	include	canals,	roads,	railroads,	or	other	manmade	linear	features.	Historic	districts	

consist	of	historic	structures	and	other	elements	that	retain	identity	and	integrity	as	a	whole.	Sacred	sites,	

cemeteries,	and	burial	places	also	qualify	as	cultural	resources,	although	they	are	generally	not	eligible	

for	listing	in	the	National	Register	of	Historic	Places	(NRHP).

Section	 106	 of	 the	 NHPA	 requires	 all	 federal	 agencies	 to	 take	 into	 account,	 prior	 to	 authorizing	 an	

undertaking,	 the	effect	 of	 that	undertaking	 on	cultural	resources	listed	in	 or	eligible	 for	listing	in	 the	

NRHP.	NHPA	establishes	specific	criteria	for	eligibility	to	the	NRHP:		

(1) Association	with	events	which	significantly	contribute	to	our	history;		

(2) Associated	with	persons	significant	in	our	history;		

(3) Embodying	distinctive	architectural	 styles	 or	methods,	high	artistic	 values,	 or	 representing	a	

significant	entity	whose	components	may	lack	individual	distinction;	or		

(4) Have	 the	 potential	 to	 yield	 information	 important	 to	 prehistory	 or	 history.	 A	 key	 factor	 in	

determining	 eligibility	 is	 an	 evaluation	 of	 the	 integrity	 of	 location,	 design,	 setting,	 materials,	

workmanship,	feeling,	and	association	of	the	resources	under	consideration	(NPS	2002).		

AAF,	 as	 a	 non‐federal	 party,	 is	 assisting	 FRA	 in	 meeting	 its	 obligations	 under	 Section	 106,	 and	 has	

conducted	studies	to	determine	if	any	cultural	resources	exist	within	the	Project’s	Area	of	Potential	Effect	

(APE)	that	are	listed	or	eligible	for	listing	in	the	NRHP.	

4.4.1 Affected Environment 

AAF	 previously	 surveyed	 portions	 of	 the	 WPB	 Rail	 Yard	 and	 the	 FECR	 Corridor	 between	 the	

WPB	Rail	Yard	and	WPB	Station	as	 part	 of	 the	Cultural	Resource	Assessment	Report	 (CRAR)	 for	 the	

Orlando	to	WPB	Segment	(Janus	Research	Inc.	2013).	Accordingly,	this	survey	is	not	comprehensive	for	

areas	located	 outside	 of	 the	 FECR	 Corridor	 right‐of‐way.	 The	 AAF	 CRAR	 survey	 did	 not	identify	 any	

significant	 resources,	 other	 than	 the	 FECR	 Corridor	 itself,	 within	 or	 adjacent	 to	 the	 portion	 of	 the	

boundary	surveyed.	The	FECR	Corridor	is	a	historic	linear	resource	adjacent	to	the	east	edge	of	the	WPB	

Rail	Yard,	and	is	eligible	for	listing	in	the	NRHP	(Janus	Research	Inc.	2013).	

AAF	 reviewed	 the	 Florida	 Master	 Site	 File	 (FMSF),	 county	 and	 local	 site	 inventories,	 published	 and	

unpublished	CRM	reports,	county	Property	Appraiser’s	records,	and	other	relevant	historical	research	

materials	to	identify	known	historic	resources	within	the	areas	of	the	APE	for	the	Project	not	included	in	

the	AAF	CRAR.	AAF	developed	the	methodology	for	this	cultural	resource	assessment	in	consultation	with	

13 16 U.S.C. § 470(f) 
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Affected Environment, Environmental 4‐19 October 2014

Consequences, and Mitigation    

the	Florida	Division	of	Historic	Resources	(FDHR),	which	is	the	State	Historic	Preservation	Office	(SHPO)	

of	Florida.	All	cultural	resource	investigations	and	consultations	in	accordance	with:		

x Section	106	of	the	National	Historic	Preservation	Act	(NHPA)	and	its	implementing	regulations	for	

Protection of Historic Properties;14		

x Field	 methods,	 data	 analysis,	 and	 reporting	 standards	 embodied	 in	 FDHR	 Cultural Resource

Management(CRM) Standards and Operational Manual(February	2003);		

x Chapter	 1A‐46	 (Archaeological	 and	 Historical	 Report	 Standards	 and	 Guidelines),	 Florida	

Administrative	Code;	and	

x Professional	 guidelines	 set	 forth	 in	 the	 Secretary	 of	 Interior’s	 Standards	 and	 Guidelines	 for	

Archaeology	and	Historic	Preservation	at	48	Florida	Regulations	44716,	as	amended	and	annotated.	

No	previously	recorded	archaeological	sites,	historic	cemeteries,	or	historic	bridges	are	located	within	or	

adjacent	to	the	APE.	The	Project	is	not	within	or	adjacent	to	any	Archaeological	Predictive	Zones	for	Palm	

Beach	County	as	described	in	Prehistoric Resources in Palm Beach County: A Preliminary Predictive Study

(Kennedy	et	al.	1991).	Table	4‐10	provides	a	list	of	historic	resources,	not	previously	analyzed	as	part	of	

the	AAF	CRAR,	that	are	within	the	APE.	

Table 4-10 Historic Resources within the Project Area and Adjacent Parcels 

Site Name 

Florida 

Master 

Site File Site Location 

Survey 

Number National Register Status 

Dunbar 

Village Public 

Housing 

8PB1328 

Historic district 

adjacent to the west 

edge of the boundary 

19933 Eligible for the National Register 

individually or as a contributing resource1

40 Different2 

Structures 

8PB1328 

Previously recorded 

structures adjacent 

to but outside of the 

station boundary 

NA Some structures are part of National 

Register–listing. However, site file forms 

shows the surveyor suggested they were 

ineligible individually and not contributing 

resource to a National Register district 

10 Different 

Structures 

Adjacent to but 

outside of the station 

boundary 

NA Structures have not been evaluated by 

the SHPO regarding National Register 

eligibility 

24 Different 

Parcels NA 

Parcels with HARB3

dates are located 

adjacent to but outside 

of the boundary 

NA Approximately 15 parcels do not currently 

correspond to previously recorded 

resources 

Source: Florida Master Site File (FMSF) resource forms and GIS data on file with the FMSF; CRM reports including CRAR for the 

AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to West Palm Beach (Janus Research 2013), Historic Structures Survey and Evaluation for 

Dunbar Village Low Rent Housing Project FLA 9-1 in West Palm Beach, Florida (Uguccioni 2010), and Prehistoric Resources in Palm 

Beach County: A Preliminary Prediction Study. Florida (Kennedy et al. 1991); and GIS Property Appraiser Data for Palm Beach County 

available from the FGDL. 

1 Letter from Robert F. Bendus, State Historic Preservation Officer, August 25, 2014

2 Inconsistencies with the reports were encountered for these structures 

3 Historic Architectural Review Board 

NA = not available 

14 36 CFR Part 800 
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Affected Environment, Environmental 4‐20 October 2014

Consequences, and Mitigation    

4.4.2 Environmental Consequences 

The	Project	would	have	no	effect	on	structures	located	along	the	existing	FECR	Corridor	as	a	result	of	

increased	train	traffic	or	noise.	There	would	be	no	effect	on	the	visual	setting	of	these	properties,	and	no	

change	in	the	FECR	historic	corridor	itself.		

Dunbar	Village	(8PB	1328)	is	a	246‐unit	public	housing	complex	in	the	West	Tamarind	neighborhood	of	

West	Palm	Beach.	The	complex	was	constructed	in	1939‐1940,	shortly	after	the	passage	of	the	Housing	

Act	of	1937,	and	was	one	of	the	first	public	housing	complexes	in	Florida.	The	northernmost	13	buildings	

of	 the	 complex	 have	 been	 demolished	 in	 a	 HUD‐approved	 redevelopment	 program	 to	 improve	 and	

modernize	 the	 complex.	 An	 additional	 17	 buildings	 are	 proposed	 for	 demolition	 in	 the	 near	 future.	

Phase	 I,	 the	Sabal	Palms	Place	project,	consists	of	nine	new	 townhouse	units	recently	constructed	on	

Tamarind	Avenue.	Phase	II,	the	Paul	Lawrence	Dunbar	Senior	Complex,	a	99‐unit	development,	will	be	

constructed	using	a	HUD	loan.	Phase	III,	a	120‐unit	complex	of	garden‐style	apartments,	is	planned	but	

not	currently	programmed	for	construction.		

The	Project	will	not	directly	affect	 the	Dunbar	Village	historic	district.	The	VMF	will	be	located	in	 the	

center	of	the	existing	yard,	separate	from	the	housing	complex	by	existing	freight	yard	tracks,	buildings,	

and	storage	areas.	As	discussed	in	Section	4.3,	there	will	be	no	noise	or	vibration	impacts	that	would	affect	

the	remaining	buildings	within	this	district,	and	there	would	be	no	change	in	the	visual	setting.	For	these	

reasons,	FRA	recommends	a	finding	of	no	adverse	effect	to	the	Dunbar	Village	Historic	District.		

4.5 Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste 

This	 section	 describes	 potential	 and	 confirmed	 sources	 of	 subsurface	 contamination	 and/or	 waste	

materials	within	 the	 Project	Study	Area.	 It	 also	 describes	 the	 potential	impacts	 that	may	 occur	 from	

existing	or	potential	releases	and	regulated	materials.		

4.5.1 Affected Environment 

This	evaluation	included	a	survey	of	potentially	contaminated	sites,	performed	in	accordance	with	Part	2,	

Chapter	22	 of	 the	 Florida	Department	 of	Transportation	 (FDOT)	Project Development and Environment

(PD&E) GuidelinesManual(FDOT	2008),	to	evaluate	potential	impacts	associated	with	the	Project.	The	area	

surveyed	 included	 the	 footprint	 of	 the	WPB	 Rail	 Yard	 and	 a	 150‐foot	 circumferential	 buffer	 from	 the	

perimeter	of	this	facility.	The	purpose	of	this	survey	was	to	identify	sites	where	contamination	of	soil	and/or	

groundwater	 by	 petroleum	 or	 hazardous	 materials	 has	 occurred,	 where	 contamination	 of	 these	 same	

materials	may	exist,	and	where	the	potential	for	contamination	exists	due	to	past	and	present	land	use.		

As	shown	in	Figure	4‐6,	the	survey	revealed	the	locations	of	sixteen	potentially	contaminated	sites	at	and	

around	 the	WPB	 Rail	 Yard.	 Seven	 of	 these	 sites	 may	 pose	 a	 high	 risk	 to	 the	 site	 from	 migration	 of	

contaminated	materials	(Table	4‐11)	(AMEC	2014a).		

   
002200 002300

002400

002600

002700

Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp.,

GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance

Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, and the GIS

User Community

Explanation of Features

Data Sources: ESRI Imagery, US Census Bureau 2010, AMEC Path: K:\KJSProjects\AAF Environmental Justice\MXD\PalmBeachRailYardMinorityPopulation2.mxd

All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project

West Palm Beach Rail Yard Minority Population

 ̄ 0 2,000 1,000

Feet

Rail Yard

1000' Rail Yard Buffer

AAF Railway Line

1000' Railway Buffer

Census Tract

Census Tract, Minority>19.8%

Census Tract, Minority>50% 4-6
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Affected Environment, Environmental 4‐22 October 2014

Consequences, and Mitigation    

Table 4-11 High-risk Contamination and Hazardous Waste Site 

Map 

ID Facility Name Address City Regulatory Lists 

Regulatory 

Status 

Distance 

to Project 

(feet) 

H-1 ND ND ND ND ND ND 

H-2 Rinker Materials 809 N. Railroad 

Ave. 

WPB NFRAP / 

NONTSD / FRS / 

STRCRA / 

TANKS / ERNS 

ERNS acid 

release. Tanks 

removed - No tank 

closure 

documentation 

71 

H-3 West Palm Beach ND WPB PCS EPA letter of 

violation 

74 

H-4 Keels Service 

Station 

720 15th St. WPB TANKS / LUST Discharge 1991 70 

H-5 Century Link 

West/FECR 

601 N. 15th St. WPB PCS / FRS / 

STRCRA / FRS / 

TANKS 

Tanks removed - 

No tank closure 

documentation 

0 

H-6 West Palm Beach 

Lift Station #21 

Grant St./ 

Division Ave. 

WPB TANKS / LUST Discharge in 2012 

and cleanup 

required 

30 

H-7 Adams Volkswagen 2409 Pinewood 

Ave. 

WPB TANKS Tanks removed - 

No tank closure 

documentation 

96 

Source: Environmental Data Management, Inc. (EDM). 2014. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2013. 

http://depedms.dep.state.fl.us/Oculus/servlet/login. Accessed August 18, 2014; Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection (FDEP). 2013. http://depedms.dep.state.fl.us/Oculus/servlet/login. Accessed August 18, 2014. 

ND = No Data 

As	shown	in	Figure	4‐6,	this	evaluation	identified	one	potentially	contaminated	site	within	the	WPB	Rail	

Yard	(Map	ID	H‐5)	and	one	immediately	adjacent	to	the	rail	yard	(Map	ID	N‐4).	Although	these	sites	may	

not	pose	a	high	risk	 to	the	Project,	 their	proximity	to	 the	WPB	Rail	Yard,	and	 the	limited	information	

available	about	the	sites,	warrants	their	consideration	during	site	planning	and	development.	

Florida East Coast Railway – Onsite Facilities.	Operations	at	the	existing	WPB	Rail	Yard	have	included	

the	 use	and	 storage	 of	 petroleum	 products.	This	 site	is	a	 potentially	 high‐risk	 site	due	 to	 the	limited	

information	 available	 related	 to	 the	 closure	 of	 former	 on‐site	tanks.	No	 closure	 documentation	 with	

respect	to	these	tanks	was	available	at	the	time	of	this	evaluation	(EDM	2014,	FDEP	2013).	The	following	

information	related	to	petroleum	storage	at	the	WPB	Rail	Yard	was	obtained	during	this	evaluation:	

x FECR	 formerly	 operated	 one	 4,000‐gallon	 aboveground	 storage	 tank	 (AST).	 The	 installation	 and	

removal	dates	are	unknown	(EDM	2014).	

x One	12,000‐gallon	underground	storage	 tank	was	installed	in	1985	and	removed	in	1998,	 (FDEP	

2013).		

x One	600‐gallon	emergency	generator	AST,	previously	owned	and	operated	by	Century	Link,	was	on	

the	site	in	1999.	The	700‐gallon	AST	was	reportedly	removed	and	replaced	in	2001	(EDM	2014).	
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Affected Environment, Environmental 4‐23 October 2014

Consequences, and Mitigation    

West Palm Beach City	‐	Lift Station #21.	This	location	is	off‐site	and	adjacent	to	the	northwest	corner

of	the	WPB	Rail	Yard.	Groundwater	sampling	conducted	to	date	does	not	indicate	petroleum‐impacted	

groundwater	 has	 migrated	 to	 the	WPB	 Rail	 Yard	 property.	 The	 following	 information	 describes	 the	

known	groundwater	impacts	at	Lift	Station	#21:	

x An	emergency	generator	operates	on	this	site,	and	is	fitted	with	a	1,000‐gallon	AST	(FDEP	2013).		

x The	 facility	is	 a	listed	 Leaking	Underground	Storage	 Tank	 (LUST)	 site.	 The	 release	 of	 at	least	 25	

gallons	 of	 diesel	 fuel	 took	 place	in	 2012.	 The	 site’s	 cleanup	 status	is	 active.	Two	 source	 removal	

excavations	took	place	at	this	property,	as	reported	in	a	Limited	Site	Assessment	Report	prepared	

Eco	Advisors,	LLC,	dated	November	2012.	This	document	reports	on	the	excavation	of	excessively	

contaminated	soil	within	10	feet	of	the	northern	property	boundary	of	the	proposed	WPB	Rail	Yard	

(FDEP	2013,	EDM	2014).		

x A	letter	dated	May	8,	2013,	prepared	by	Palm	Beach	County,	indicates	assessment	will	be	required	on	

the	FECR	property	to	the	northeast	of	the	WPB	substation	(EDM	2014).		

4.5.2 Environmental Consequences 

The	majority	of	potentially	contaminated	sites	identified	by	this	evaluation	are	within	developed	areas	

adjacent	to	the	existing	FECR	Corridor.	However,	the	proposed	rail	infrastructure	upgrades	associated	

with	 the	 Project	 would	 be	 completely	 within	 the	 existing	 FECR	 Corridor,	 would	 result	 in	 minimal	

subsurface	disturbance,	and	would	not	impact	existing	contaminated	areas.	Therefore,	these	sites	do	not	

pose	a	high	risk	to	the	Project.	

Based	on	the	limited	ground	disturbance	currently	planned	within	the	existing	FECR	Corridor	and	at	the	

WPB	Rail	Yard	the	Project	is	not	expected	to	encounter	impacted	soil	and/or	groundwater.		

AAF	would	perform	vehicle	washing,	maintenance,	and	fueling	at	the	WPB	Rail	Yard.	Planned	operations	at	

this	facility	would	also	include	the	use	of	hazardous	materials.	The	Project	would	not	include	the	use	or	

storage	of	hazardous	materials	outside	the	WPB	Rail	Yard	property.	Typical	materials	that	AAF	would	store	

and	use	at	the	WPB	Rail	Yard	include	diesel	fuel,	motor	oils,	lubricants,	and	degreasers.	Table	4‐12	provides	

an	inventory	of	the	typical	materials	stored	at	existing	vehicle	maintenance	facilities	and	is	representative	

of	the	types	and	quantities	of	hazardous	materials	that	AAF	anticipates	storing	at	the	WPB	Rail	Yard.	

Table 4-12 Anticipated Hazardous Products Storage at the WPB Rail Yard 

Capacity Contents 

Mobile Fueling Diesel Fuel 

500-gallon AST (1) Gasoline 

250-gallon AST (1) Conventional Oil 

250-gallon AST (1) Hydraulic Oil 

250-gallon AST (1) Waste Oil 

AST = Aboveground Storage Tank 
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Affected Environment, Environmental 4‐24 October 2014

Consequences, and Mitigation    

Passenger	 trains	 traveling	 between	 the	WPB	 Station	 and	 the	WPB	Rail	 Yard	 would	 not	 be	 carrying,	

storing,	or	using	hazardous	materials	with	the	exception	of	on‐board	fuel,	lubricants,	and	relatively	small	

quantities	of	materials	required	for	the	operation	of	passenger	trains.	

4.6 Transportation 

This	section	provides	an	overview	of	the	existing	transportation	infrastructure	within	the	Project	Study	

Area	as	well	as	the	potential	impacts	to	such	infrastructure	from	the	operation	of	the	Project.		

4.6.1 Affected Environment 

The	Project	Study	Area	associated	with	this	transportation	evaluation	includes	the	WPB	Rail	Yard,	which	

is	 between	 15th	 and	 23rd	 Streets,	 and	 the	 FECR	 Corridor	 between	 Clematis	 Street	 and	 23rd	 Street.	

Transportation	infrastructure	within	the	Project	Study	Area	includes	local	roads	serving	the	WPB	Rail	

Yard	and	at‐grade	crossings	crossed	by	the	FECR	Corridor,	as	described	below.		

4.6.1.1 Local Roads Serving VMF 

The	local	roadway	network	near	the	WPB	Rail	Yard	is	characteristic	of	an	urban	setting,	with	urban	speed	

limits	and	signalized	intersections.	The	local	roadway	network	is	a	grid	of	north‐south	and	east‐west	

oriented	streets.	Land	use	surrounding	the	project	site	is	primarily	residential,	local	roads	generally	have	

two	lanes	(one	in	each	direction),	limited	or	no	sidewalk	vegetation,	and	are	typical	of	residential,	urban	

areas.	Several	of	the	larger	local	roads	such	as	36th	Street	consist	of	two	lanes	(one	in	each	direction)	and	

have	center	dividers	with	planted	vegetation.		

Larger	traffic	arteries	running	though	the	Project	Study	Area	include	North	Australian	Avenue	west	of	the	

WPB	Rail	Yard	and	U.S.	Route	1	(U.S.	1)	east	of	the	WPB	Rail	Yard,	which	are	oriented	in	a	north‐south	

direction,	and	Palm	Beach	Lakes	Boulevard	south	of	the	site,	which	is	oriented	in	an	east‐west	direction.	

The	segments	of	North	Australian	Avenue	and	U.S.	1	near	the	WPB	Rail	Yard	are	four‐lane	roads	with	no	

center	 divider.	 In	 2013,	 North	 Australian	 Avenue	 had	 an	 Annual	 Average	 Daily	 Traffic	 (AADT)	 of	

approximately	22,200	and	U.S.	1	had	an	AADT	of	approximately	17,700	(FDOT	2013).	Palm	Beach	Lakes	

Boulevard	is	also	a	four‐lane	road	in	the	segment	directly	south	of	the	WPB	Rail	Yard,	and	had	an	AADT	

of	approximately	28,000	in	 the	same	year	(FDOT	2013).	As	Palm	Beach	Lakes	Boulevard	approaches	

Interstate	95,	to	the	west,	it	widens	into	a	six‐lane	roadway	with	a	center	median.	

All	vehicles	accessing	the	WPB	Rail	Yard	use	the	existing	entrance	on	15th	Street,	which	has	an	AADT	of	

approximately	3,300	vehicles,	including	211	trucks	(FDOT	2013).	Access	to	the	WPB	Rail	Yard	from	this	

two‐lane	street	is	on	the	southeastern	corner	of	the	facility.	

4.6.1.2 At-Grade Crossings 

The	Project	is	completely	within	an	existing	area	of	 the	FECR	Corridor	 that	crosses	 four	roadways	at	

signalized	 and/or	 gated	 crossings:	 15th	 Street,	 3rd	 Street,	 Banyan	 Boulevard	 (1st	 Street),	 and	

Clematis	Street.	As	previously	noted,	the	AADT	for	15th	Street	is	3,300	vehicles,	including	211	trucks.	The	

AADT	for	Banyan	Boulevard	(1st	Street)	is	39,500	vehicles,	including	2,923	trucks.	FDOT	does	not	monitor	
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Affected Environment, Environmental 4‐25 October 2014

Consequences, and Mitigation    

traffic	for	3rd	Street	or	Clematis	Street	(FDOT	2013).	Table	4‐13	summarizes	existing	freight	operating	

characteristics	and	average	crossing	closures	along	the	FECR	Corridor	in	Palm	Beach	County.		

Table 4-13 Summary of Existing (2011) Freight Operating Characteristics and Average 

Crossing Closures in Palm Beach County 

Palm Beach County 

Time to Activate and Close the Gate (seconds)1 30 

Average Train Length (feet) 8,150 

Average Train Speed (miles per hour)2 59.4 

Time to Clear (sec) 94 

Time to Bring the Gate Back Up (seconds) 15 

Total Time to Activate and Clear (sec) 139 

Crossings (Trains per Day) 18 

Closure (minutes per day) 41.6 

Maximum Crossings per Hour3 1 

Maximum Delay per Hour (minutes)4 2.3 

Source: AAF. 2012. Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project West 

Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04278. Accessed September 12, 2013. 

1 FRA regulations require 20 seconds to activate and close the gate prior to the train entering the railroad crossing and 10 

seconds to bring the gate back up. FDOT uses 30 seconds to activate and close the gate prior to the train entering the 

railroad crossing and 15 seconds to bring the gate back up. To account for the worst-case scenario, FDOT timings were 

used in this analysis. 

2 2011 freight speed for Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie, Indian River, and Brevard Counties was obtained from 

Section 3.3.1.1 of the Environmental Assessment for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to 

Miami, Florida, dated October 31, 2012. 

3 Maximum crossings per hour includes north-bound and south-bound trains combined 

4 Maximum Delay per Hour calculated as the Total Time to Activate and Clear multiplied by the Maximum Crossings per Hour. 

4.6.2 Environmental Consequences 

This	 section	 provides	 an	 analysis	 of	 the	 potential	 impacts	 of	 the	 Project	 on	 transportation	 systems.	

Impacts	 to	local	 traffic	include	 roadway	 crossing	 delays	and	 through	VMF	implementation.	Roadway	

crossing	delays	were	determined	by	calculating	delay	times	resulting	from	the	Project	and	comparing	

them	to	the	modeling	results	presented	in	the	Phase	I	EA.		

4.6.2.1 Local Roads Serving VMF 

All	vehicles	accessing	the	WPB	Rail	Yard	would	use	the	existing	entrance	on	15th	Street.	The	Project	would	

increase	average	daily	traffic	volume	on	this	street	by	approximately	25	to	30	employee	vehicles	and	one	

to	 two	 delivery	 vehicles.	 This	 increase	 would	 have	 a	 minimal	 impact	 on	 local	 roadways	 and	 traffic	

patterns.	

4.6.2.2 At-Grade Crossings 

The	Project	includes	a	total	of	16	daily	train	trips	between	the	WPB	VMF	and	the	WPB	Station.	Twelve	

passenger	trains	would	travel	between	the	WPB	Rail	Yard	and	the	WPB	Station	between	7:01	AM	and	
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Affected Environment, Environmental 4‐26 October 2014

Consequences, and Mitigation    

10:00	PM.	This	includes	two	passenger	trains	in	the	morning	traveling	southbound,	two	passenger	trains	

late	 in	 the	 day	 traveling	 northbound,	 and	 four	 roundtrip	 passenger	 trains	 during	 the	 day	 for	 crew	

changes.	Four	passenger	trains	would	travel	between	the	WPB	Rail	Yard	and	the	WPB	Station	between	

10:01	PM	and	7:00	AM.	This	includes	two	passenger	trains	traveling	southbound	in	the	early	morning	

and	two	passenger	trains	traveling	northbound	late	at	night.		

The	Project	is	completely	within	an	existing	area	of	 the	FECR	Corridor	 that	crosses	 four	roadways	at	

signalized	and/or	gated	crossings	within	the	0.9‐mile	section	between	the	WPB	Rail	Yard	and	the	WPB	

Station.	The	four	crossings	are	at	15th	Street,	3rd	Street,	Banyan	Boulevard	(1st	Street),	and	Clematis	Street.	

The	addition	of	16	passenger	train	round	trips	per	day	would	cause	additional	closures	at	these	crossings;	

however,	 closures	 from	 passenger	 trains	 would	 be	much	 shorter	 than	 closures	 from	 existing	 freight	

traffic.	 On	 average,	 an	 at‐grade	 crossing	 requires	 30	 seconds	 to	 activate	 and	 close	 the	 gates,	 and	

15	seconds	to	bring	the	gate	back	up.	For	freight	trains	(average	length	8,150	feet	and	average	speed	

approximately	59.4	mph),	a	single	train	crossing	results	in	an	average	crossing	closure	of	139	seconds	

(see	Table	4‐13),	or	2.3	minutes.	For	passenger	trains	(average	length	725	to	900	feet	and	average	speed	

20	mph),	a	single	train	crossing	results	in	an	average	crossing	closure	of	between	69.7	and	76	seconds,	or	

1.2	 to	1.3	minutes.	The	addition	of	16	passenger	 trains	would	result	in	additional	closures	of	18.6	 to	

20.3	minutes	per	day.	

The	Project	would	enhance	public	safety	 through	crossing	improvements	at	each	of	 the	 four	at‐grade	

crossings	within	the	Project	Study	Area.	This	includes	upgraded	warning	devices	such	as	flashing	lights,	

signage,	 pavement	 markings,	 median	 barriers,	 and	 four‐quadrant	 gates.	 The	 Project	 would	 also	

implement	 electronic	 warning	 systems,	 which	 would	 monitor	 and	 communicate	 train	 locations	 and	

speeds,	 and	 would	 stop	 trains	 if	 a	 crossing	 were	 not	 clear.	 Upgrades	 to	 road‐crossings	 would	 be	

coordinated	with	and/or	communicated	to	local	emergency	responders,	as	activations	at	the	road	crossings	

would	 be	 more	 frequent	 with	 the	 increased	 frequency	 of	 train	 traffic.	 The	 delays,	 however,	 would	 be	

minimal,	as	passenger	trains	should	clear	a	typical	crossing	in	approximately	one	minute.	

4.7 Social and Economic Environment 

This	section	provides	an	overview	of	existing	social	and	economic	profiles	within	the	Project	Study	Area	

as	well	as	the	potential	impacts	to	these	resources	from	the	operation	of	the	Project.	The	Project	Study	

Area	 associated	 with	 this	 social	 and	 economic	 assessment	 is	 comprised	 of	 five	 census	 tracts	 within	

1,000	feet	of	the	WPB	Rail	Yard	in	Palm	Beach	County	(Census	Tracts	22,	23,	24,	26,	and	27).		

The	 social	 profile	 provides	 a	 picture	 of	 the	 population	 distribution,	 and	 the	means	 to	 determine	 the	

impacts,	if	any;	the	Project	would	have	on	surrounding	communities	and	the	economy	of	the	area.	The	

economic	 profile	 consists	 of	 economic	 characteristics	 that	 include	 unemployment	 rates,	 labor	 force	

characterization,	dominant	business	sector	types,	and	median	household	income.		

4.7.1 Affected Environment 

The	Project	Study	Area	is	within	an	urban	setting,	Table	4‐14	provides	the	total	populations	of	the	State	

of	Florida,	Palm	Beach	County,	the	City	of	West	Palm	Beach,	and	the	five	census	tracts	that	comprise	the	
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Affected Environment, Environmental 4‐27 October 2014

Consequences, and Mitigation    

Project	Study	Area.	The	population	residing	within	the	Project	Study	Area	amounts	to	12.8	percent	of	the	

city’s	population,	but	less	than	1	percent	of	the	county’s	population	(USCB	2010a).		

Table 4-14 Total Populations at the State, County, City, and Project Study Area 

Region Total Population 

Population within the 

Project Area Buffer1 

Percent of 

Population within the 

Project Area Buffer1 

Florida 18,801,310 12,813 0.07 

Palm Beach County 1,320,134 12,813 0.97 

West Palm Beach 99,919 12,813 12.8 

Source: United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2010. U.S. Census Tracts in Florida (with Selected Fields from 2010 Summary File 

1). http://www.census.gov. Accessed August 20, 2014. 

1 Census tracts found within the Project Study Area 

Table	4‐15	describes	the	existing	labor	force	and	dominant	business	sectors	identified	for	the	State	of	

Florida,	Palm	Beach	County,	the	City	of	West	Palm	Beach,	and	the	Project	Study	Area.	According	to	the	

2007‐2011	American	 Community	Survey	 (ACS),	 the	 following	 four	 business	 sector	 types	 employ	 the	

greatest	 percentage	 of	 the	 labor	 force	 in	 these	 areas:	 educational	 services,	 health	 care,	 and	 social	

assistance;	 retail	 trade;	 professional,	 scientific,	 management,	 administrative,	 and	 waste	 management	

services;	and	arts,	entertainment,	recreation,	accommodation,	and	food	services.	The	greatest	number	of	

people	in	the	labor	 force	within	 the	Project	Study	Area	work	in	educational	services,	health	care,	and	

social	assistance	and	retail	trade	(31	percent)	(USCB	2011a).		

Table 4-15 Existing Labor Force and General Employment Data for the State, County, City, 

and Project Study Area 

Area 

Total 

Population 

Employed in 

Labor Force 

Industry Type (Percent of Workforce)

Percent 

Unemployed

Educational 

Services, 

Health Care 

& Social 

Assistance 

Retail 

Trade 

Professional, 

Scientific, 

Management, 

Administrative & 

Waste 

Management 

Services 

Arts, 

Entertainment & 

Recreation, 

Accommodation 

& Food Services 

Florida 8,258,511 20.5 13.1 12.0 11.3 6.2 

Palm Beach County 579,516 20.0 13.4 14.0 11.2 6.3 

West Palm Beach 47,681 19.3 12.4 14.3 12.5 7.0 

Project Area Buffer1 5,242 18.4 16.6 13.2 14.3 7.2 

Source: United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2011. 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 

http://www.census.gov/acs/www. Accessed August 20, 2014. 

1 Census tracts found within the Economic and Social Environment Assessment Area 
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Affected Environment, Environmental 4‐28 October 2014

Consequences, and Mitigation    

Table	4‐16	describes	the	median	household	income	for	the	state	of	Florida,	Palm	Beach	County,	the	City	

of	West	Palm	Beach,	and	the	Project	Study	Area.	According	to	the	2007‐2011	ACS,	the	weighted	average	

of	median	 household	income	 for	 the	 Project	 Study	Area	is	 approximately	 23	 percent	lower	 than	 the	

average	 household	 income	 for	 Palm	 Beach	 County,	 and	 nearly	 12	 percent	 lower	 than	 the	 average	

household	income	for	West	Palm	Beach	(USCB	2011a).	

Table 4-16 Median Household Income for the State, County, City, and Project Study Area 

Region 

Median Household Income 

(Total State/County)

Florida $47,827 

Palm Beach County $52,951 

West Palm Beach $45,806 

Project Study Area $40,5381 

Source: United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2011. 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 

http://www.census.gov/acs/www. Accessed August 20, 2014. 

1 Weighted by census tract 

Section	 4.7,	 Environmental Justice, presents	 information	 pertaining	 to	 minority	 and	 low‐income	

populations	identified	within	the	Project	Study	Area.	

4.7.2 Environmental Consequences 

As	the	Project	occurs	entirely	within	the	footprint	of	an	existing	rail	yard	and	rail	corridor,	which	already	

bisect	the	communities	that	have	developed	following	the	construction	of	the	railroad,	the	Project	would	

not	result	in	new	neighborhood	fragmentation	or	loss	of	continuity	among	neighborhoods.	The	Project	

would	 not	 require	 property	 acquisition,	 and	 no	 property	 conversions	 from	 private	 ownership	 to	

transportation	use	would	take	place.	Therefore,	the	Project	would	not	result	in	required	residential	or	

commercial	relocations,	the	loss	of	revenues	generated	by	business	enterprises,	or	the	loss	of	assessed	

land	taxes.	

The	Project	would	establish	20	to	30	new	jobs,	resulting	in	direct	socioeconomic	benefits	in	the	form	of	

increased	local	labor	income.	The	implementation	of	the	VMF	is	anticipated	to	increase	the	tax	valuation	

of	the	WPB	Rail	Yard,	thereby	increasing	municipal	property	tax	collections.	

4.8 Environmental Justice 

Executive	Order	(EO)	12898,	Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Population and

Low‐Income Populations,	requires	that	federal	agencies	consider	whether	a	proposed	project	would	have	

a	disproportionately	high	adverse	impact	on	minority	or	low‐income	populations.	CEQ	has	oversight	of	

the	federal	government’s	compliance	with	NEPA,	including	EO	12898.	CEQ’s	guidance	indicates	that	an	

environmental	 justice	 analysis	 should	 identify	 if	 a	 disproportionately	 high	 adverse	 human	 health	 or	

environmental	impact	occurs	on	minority	or	low‐income	populations	(CEQ	1997a).	Furthermore,	USDOT	

Order	 5610.2(a)	 establishes	USDOT	 policy	 to	 consider	 environmental	justice	 principles	in	 all	USDOT	
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Affected Environment, Environmental 4‐29 October 2014

Consequences, and Mitigation    

programs,	 policies,	 and	 activities.	 USDOT	 Order	 5610.2(a)	 also	 sets	 forth	 the	 steps	 to	 prevent	

disproportionately	high	and	adverse	impacts	to	minority	or	low‐income	populations.		

CEQ,	with	input	 from	 the	 EPA	and	 other	affected	agencies,	 developed	a	guidance	 document	 to	assist	

federal	 agencies	 with	 their	 NEPA	 procedures	 so	 that	 environmental	 justice	 concerns	 are	 effectively	

identified	and	addressed.	CEQ’s	guidance	document	indicates	that	

“minority	 populations	 should	 be	 identified	 where	 either:	 (a)	 the	 minority	 population	 of	 the	

affected	area	exceeds	50	percent	or	(b)	the	minority	population	percentage	of	the	affected	area	is	

meaningfully	greater	than	the	minority	population	percentage	in	the	general	population	or	other	

appropriate	unit	of	geographic	analysis.	A	minority	population	also	exists	if	there	is	more	than	

one	 minority	 group	 present	 and	 the	 minority	 percentage,	 as	 calculated	 by	 aggregating	 all	

minority	persons,	meets	one	of	the	above‐stated	thresholds.”	(CEQ	1997a)		

CEQ’s	 guidance	 for	 environmental	 justice	 indicates	 that	 low‐income	 populations	 in	 an	 affected	 area	

“should	 be	 identified	 with	 the	 annual	 statistical	 poverty	 thresholds	 from	 the	 Bureau	 of	 the	 Census’	

Current	Population	Reports,	Series	P‐60	on	Income	and	Poverty	(CEQ	1997a).”	According	to	the	United	

States	Census	Bureau	(USCB),	weighted	average	poverty	 thresholds	 for	2011	ranged	 from	$10,788	 to	

$11,702	annual	income	for	individuals,	and	$13,596	to	$50,059	for	households,	depending	on	age	and	the	

number	of	people	in	the	household	(USCB	2011b).	

For	the	purposes	of	this	assessment,	thresholds	to	determine	meaningfully	greater	minority	and	low‐

income	populations	include	census	tracts	where	minority	and	low‐income	populations	are	10	percent	

higher	than	the	Community	of	Comparison	(COC).	The	COC	for	the	Project	is	the	City	of	West	Palm	Beach.		

4.8.1 Affected Environment 

This	 section	 provides	 an	 overview	 of	 the	 existing	 conditions	 related	 to	 minority	 and	 low‐income	

populations	within	the	Project	Study	Area.	The	Project	Study	Area	associated	with	this	assessment	is	the	

same	as	described	under	Section	4.6,	which	includes	the	five	census	tracts	within	1,000	feet	of	the	WPB	

Rail	Yard	in	Palm	Beach	County	(Census	Tracts	22,	23,	24,	26,	and	27).	

4.8.1.1 Race 

The	minority	population	refers	to	persons	whose	race	or	ethnicity	is	something	other	than	‘White	alone,’	

as	 identified	 by	 the	 US	 Census.	 The	 minority	 population	 includes	 the	 following	 racial	 and	 ethnic	

categories:	Black	or	African	American;	American	Indian	and	Alaskan	Native;	Asian,	Native	Hawaiian	and	

Other	 Pacific	 Islander;	 Some	 Other	 Race;	 Two	 or	 More	 Races;	 and	 Hispanic	 or	 Latino.	 Table	 4‐17	

summarizes	the	minority	and	Hispanic	or	Latino	populations	for	the	state,	county,	city,	and	the	Project	

Study	Area.	
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Affected Environment, Environmental 4‐30 October 2014

Consequences, and Mitigation    

Table 4-17 Summary of Minority and Hispanic or Latino Populations for the State, County, 

City, and Project Study Area 

Region 

Minority Population

Total % 

Florida 7,771,368 41.6 

Palm Beach County 512,241 39.1 

West Palm Beach 55,779 56.5 

Project Study Area1 4,773 44.4 

 Census Tract 22 1,625 100.0 

 Census Tract 23 927 51.8 

 Census Tract 24 893 80.0 

 Census Tract 26 298 25.6 

 Census Tract 27 1,030 20.4 

Source: United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2011. 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 

http://www.census.gov/acs/www. Accessed August 20, 2014. 

1 Census tracts found within the Project Study Area 

According	to	the	2011	ACS,	the	minority	population	within	the	Project	Study	Area	is	44.4	percent.	This	is	

higher	 than	 the	 total	 percentage	 of	 the	 population	 considered	minority	in	 Palm	 Beach	 County	 (39.1	

percent),	but	lower	than	the	total	percentage	of	the	population	considered	minority	in	the	City	of	West	

Palm	Beach	(56.5	percent).	Among	the	five	census	tracts	that	comprise	the	Project	Study	Area,	Census	

Tracts	22,	23,	and	24	have	minority	populations	above	50	percent	(see	Figure	4‐7).	No	other	census	tracts	

have	minority	populations	that	are	meaningfully	greater	than	the	COC	(≥66.5	percent,	which	is	10	percent	

higher	than	the	percent	minority	population	of	the	City	of	West	Palm	Beach)	(USCB	2011a).		

4.8.1.2 Low-Income 

The	percentage	of	the	population	below	the	poverty	level	depends	on	the	population	for	which	poverty	

status	has	been	determined,	rather	 than	 the	 total	population	in	a	given	area.	Table	4‐18	summarizes	

poverty	status	within	the	state,	county,	city,	and	the	Project	Study	Area.	

Table 4-18 Summary of Poverty Data (2007-2011 ACS 5-year estimates) for the State, 

County, City, and Project Study Area 

Region Total Population Assessed Population Below Poverty Percent Below Poverty

Florida 18,282,511 2,679,400 14.7 

Palm Beach County 1,290,963 171,135 13.3 

West Palm Beach 95,966 18,014 18.8 

Project Study Area1 9,612 2,735 28.5 

 Census Tract 22 1,625 847 52.1 

 Census Tract 23 1,783 605 33.9 

 Census Tract 24 1,076 464 43.1 

 Census Tract 26 1,139 121 10.6 

 Census Tract 27 3,989 698 17.5 

Source: United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2011. 2007-2011 American Com1munity Survey 5-Year Estimates. 

http://www.census.gov/acs/www. Accessed August 20, 2014. 

1 Census tracts found within the Project Study Area 
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Affected Environment, Environmental 4‐31 October 2014

Consequences, and Mitigation    

According	to	the	2011	ACS,	28.5	percent	of	the	population	within	the	Project	Study	Area	has	been	below	

the	poverty	level	in	2010	or	2011.	This	is	higher	than	the	total	percent	of	the	population	below	poverty	

in	Palm	Beach	County	(13.3	percent)	and	the	City	of	West	Palm	Beach	(18.8	percent).	Among	the	five	

census	tracts	that	comprise	the	Project	Study	Area,	Census	Tract	22	has	a	low‐income	population	above	

50	percent.	Census	Tracts	23	and	24	have	minority	populations	that	are	meaningfully	greater	than	the	

COC	(≥28.8	percent,	which	is	10	percent	higher	than	the	percent	of	the	population	below	poverty	of	the	

City	of	West	Palm	Beach)	(see	Figure	4‐8)	(USCB	2011a).	

Dunbar	Village	is	a	public	housing	complex	that	is	west	of	the	WPB	Rail	Yard	and	within	Census	Tract	22.	

The	 presence	 of	 this	 development,	 which	 is	 owned	 and	 operated	 by	 the	 West	 Palm	 Beach	 Housing	

Authority,	explains	the	high	minority	and	low‐income	populations	found	within	this	census	tract	and	the	

Project	Study	Area.	

4.8.2 Environmental Consequences 

As	 noted	 in	 Section	 4.6.2,	 the	 Project	 would	 not	 result	 in	 residential	 displacement,	 job	 loss,	 or	

neighborhood	fragmentation	due	to	the	acquisition	and	conversion	of	property;	therefore,	there	would	

be	no	disproportionate	impacts	to	environmental	justice	communities	from	changes	in	land	use.		

While	there	are	several	census	tracts	that	have	minority	and	low‐income	populations	greater	than	50	

percent	 and/or	 are	meaningfully	 greater	 than	 the	 COC,	 there	 would	 be	 no	 disproportionate	 adverse	

impacts	 to	 environmental	 justice	 communities.	 As	 there	 would	 be	 no	 negative	 environmental	

consequences	associated	with	any	resource	area,	 there	would	be	no	negative	impact	 to	communities	

within	the	Project	Study	Area.	

4.9 Safety 

This	section	describes	the	proposed	conditions	at	the	WPB	Rail	Yard	and	at‐grade	crossings	within	the	

Project	Study	Area,	as	described	in	Section	4.5,	with	respect	to	the	health	and	safety	of	the	residents	and	

communities	that	the	construction	and	operation	of	the	Project	may	impact.	The	Project	would	comply	

with	 all	 relevant	 health	 and	 safety	 regulations,	 including	 the	 Americans	 with	 Disability	 Act	 of	 1990	

(ADA),15	and	would	not	adversely	impact	the	public’s	health	or	safety.	

During	construction,	all	contractors	would	be	subject	to	the	contractor’s	site	health	and	safety	plan.	Site	

security	 measures	 would	 include	 fencing,	 gates,	 and	 proper	 signage.	 If	 contractors	 encounter	 any	

petroleum	contaminated	soils	or	groundwater	during	site	construction	activities,	they	would	implement	

Best	 Management	 Practices	 (BMPs)	 to	 handle	 and	 dispose	 of	 the	 material	 in	 accordance	 with	 the	

applicable	environmental	regulations.		

   

15 41 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. 
002200 002300

002300

002700

002300

002400

002400

002600

Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp.,

GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance

Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, and the GIS

User Community

Explanation of Features

Data Sources: ESRI Imagery, US Census Bureau 2010, AMEC Path: F:\KJSProjects\AAF Environmental Justice\MXD\PalmBeachRailYardPovertyPopulation2.mxd

All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project

West Palm Beach Rail Yard Poverty Population

 ̄ 0 1,000 500

Feet

Rail Yard

1000' Rail Yard Buffer

AAF Railway Line

1000' Railway Buffer

CBG

CBG, Poverty > 21,72%

CBG, Poverty > 50% 4-7
Contaminated Sites Map for West Palm Beach Rail Yard

D

D

¬«298

¬«299

N-2 N-1

N-3 L-1

H-1

H-2

L-2 H-3

L-3

L-4

L-5

H-4

H-5 N-4

H-6

Copyright:© 2013 Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed,

USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project 

 ̄ 0 1,000 500

 Feet

Path: F:\FECI\FECI_GDB\MXD\EA\PalmBeachRailYardContaminatedSitesMap.mxd Data Sources: ESRI Imagery, FEMA 2012, AMEC 2014

Explanation of Features

AAF Railway Line

Rail Yard 150' Buffer

West Palm Beach Rail Yard

1000' Railway Buffer

D Mile Post

High

Medium

Low

No

4-8
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Affected Environment, Environmental 4‐34 October 2014

Consequences, and Mitigation    

With	respect	to	design	and	Project	use,	the	Project	would	implement	BMPs	to	ensure	there	is	adequate	

lighting	and	site	visibility	to	prevent	criminal	activity	and	to	provide	safe	working	conditions	for	all	facility	

operations.	The	Project	would	include	a	security	 fence	 to	separate	passenger	operations	 from	 freight	

movements	and	operations.	

The	Projectwould	enhance	public	safety	with	respect	to	local	vehicular	and	pedestrian	traffic.	The	Project	

would	elevate	public	safety	by	upgrading	crossing	signal	equipment	at	the	four	at‐grade	crossings	within	

the	 Project	 Study	 Area	 (15th	 Street,	 3rd	 Street,	 Banyan	 Boulevard	 [1st	 Street],	 and	 Clematis	 Street).	

Upgrades	 to	 road‐crossings	 would	 be	 coordinated	 with	 and/or	 communicated	 to	 local	 emergency	

responders,	as	activations	at	the	road	crossings	would	be	more	frequent	with	the	increased	frequency	of	

train	traffic.	The	delays,	however,	would	be	minimal,	as	passenger	trains	should	clear	a	typical	crossing	in	

less	than	one	minute.		

The	ADA	provides	for	equal	opportunity	for	individuals	with	disabilities	to	access	public	and	private	

facilities.	Although	the	WPB	Rail	Yard	is	not	a	public‐use	facility,	the	construction	of	new	buildings	would	

comply	 with	 the	 requirements	 of	 the	 ADA	 as	 well	 as	 any	 other	 applicable	 federal,	 state	 and	 local	

provisions	related	to	providing	access	for	persons	with	disabilities.	

4.10 Energy 

This	section	provides	an	overview	of	the	existing	conditions	related	to	energy	at	the	WPB	Rail	Yard,	as	

well	as	the	potential	impacts	to	this	resource	that	could	result	from	the	Project.		

This	evaluation	was	performed	in	accordance	with	the	guidance	issued	in	the	1999	FRA	“Procedures	for	

Considering	Environmental	Impacts”	and	the	EPA’s	1994	Energy Efficiency Reference for Environmental

Reviewers	 (EPA	 1994b).	 NEPA	 requires	 an	 analysis	 of	 the	 Project’s	 impact	 to	 identify	 any	 potential	

conflicts	between	utility	operators	and	availability	of	energy	resources.	

4.10.1 Affected Environment 

Florida	Power	&	Light	Company	(FPL)	provides	electricity	to	the	WPB	Rail	Yard.	Aboveground	electrical	

transmission/distribution	 lines	 are	 located	 along	 and	 within	 the	 FECR	 Corridor.	 The	WPB	 Rail	 Yard	

currently	has	light	poles	across	the	parcel.		

4.10.2 Environmental Consequences 

The	Project	would	require	an	increase	in	electricity	to	service	the	new	buildings	and	power	equipment;	

however,	the	additional	amount	of	electricity	anticipated	for	the	Project	would	be	minimal,	and	would	

not	create	an	adverse	impact	or	disproportionate	demand	on	the	existing	or	planning	electrical	grid.	The	

Project	 may	 also	 require	 upgrades	 to	 lighting	 equipment.	 Impacts	 to	 aerial	 electric	 lines	 would	 be	

temporary	and	would	likely	be	limited	to	relocating	utility	poles	within	the	WPB	Rail	Yard	and	potentially	

between	the	WPB	Rail	Yard	and	the	WPB	Station,	if	tracks	require	shifting.	The	number	of	light	poles	at	

the	WPB	Rail	Yard	would	not	change	with	the	addition	of	the	passenger	train	facilities,	though	the	location	

of	individual	poles	may	change.	The	Project	includes	an	onsite	emergency	generator	for	use	in	the	event	

of	a	power	outage.	
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Affected Environment, Environmental 4‐35 October 2014

Consequences, and Mitigation    

4.11 Construction Impacts and Mitigation 

Impacts	 from	 the	construction	of	 the	Project	would	be	 temporary	and	occur	during	and	immediately	

following	construction.	The	time	required	for	specific	construction	impacts	to	dissipate	is	dependent	on	

the	 type	 of	 activity	 performed	 and	 resource	 potentially	 impacted.	 Most	 construction	 impacts	 cease	

immediately	after	the	completion	of	an	activity.	Some	specific	construction	impacts	are	unknown	at	this	

time,	as	they	depend	on	several	factors	yet	to	be	determined.	These	factors	include	final	design,	location	

of	staging,	identification	of	specific	materials	and	equipment,	construction	methodologies,	and	location	of	

areas	for	the	disposal	of	construction	and	demolition	waste.	AAF	anticipates	that	construction	of	the	WPB	

Rail	Yard	would	last	between	six	and	nine	months.		

4.11.1 Air Quality 

Overall,	impacts	 from	construction	associated	with	 the	Project	to	air	quality	would	be	negligible.	The	

primary	pollutant	associated	with	construction	operations	would	be	fugitive	dust	emissions	from	vehicle	

traffic	(i.e.,	trucks,	front‐end	loaders,	etc.)	on	unpaved	areas	and	emissions	from	these	same	vehicles	by	

way	of	tailpipe	emissions.	Due	to	the	relatively	small	area	of	construction,	impacts	from	upgrading	the	

WPB	Rail	Yard	would	be	minor.	Contractors	would	control	 fugitive	dust	impacts	through	watering	or	

other	palliative	measures.	Tailpipe	emissions	would	be	exceptionally	small	when	considered	relative	to	

current	tailpipe	emissions	from	other	vehicles	in	the	area.	

4.11.2 Noise and Vibration 

Noise 

Based	on	FTA	guidelines,	the	analysis	estimated	the	combined	noise	level	in	1	hour	generated	by	the	two	

noisiest	 pieces	 of	 construction	 equipment.	 For	 anticipated	 track	 work	 and	 building	 construction,	 the	

analysis	assumed	that	a	rail	saw	and	bulldozer	were	the	noisiest	pieces	of	equipment,	which	have	a	typical	

noise	 level	 of	 90	 and	 85	 dBA,	 respectively,	 at	 50	 feet	 from	 the	 source	 (FTA	 2006).	 To	 provide	 a	

conservative	estimate,	the	analysis	assumed	both	pieces	of	equipment	would	operate	at	the	same	time,	

which	would	result	in	a	cumulative	noise	of	91.2	dBA	at	50	feet.	Equipment	was	assumed	to	be	in	use	at	

the	Heavy	Construction	Equipment	Boundary	along	the	west	side	of	the	WPB	Rail	Yard	and	the	FECR	

Corridor	right‐of‐way	boundary	(Figures	4‐9	and	4‐10)	and	the	noise	levels	were	propagated	away	from	

the	source.	Noise	impact	criteria	are	provided	in	Table	4‐19.		Based	on	these	criteria,	noise	levels	would	

not	exceed	the	impact	criteria	for	commercial	or	industrial	areas.		Construction	of	the	VMF	yard	would	

not	 exceed	 noise	 impact	 criteria	 at	 adjacent	 residences	 except	 those	 immediately	 adjacent	 to	 the	

northwest	corner	of	the	yard.		Construction	noise	from	the	mainline	track	segments	would	affect	the	first	

row	 of	 residences	 along	 the	 mainline.	 	 In	 total,	 19	 parcels	 would	 be	 impacted	 during	 the	 day	 and	

67	 parcels	 would	 be	 impacted	 if	 construction	 occurred	 during	 the	 nighttime.	 Impact	 contours	 are	

depicted	in	Figures	4‐9	and	4‐10.	
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics,

CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,

swisstopo, and the GIS User Community, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia,

© OpenStreetMap contributors

Construction Noise & Vibration Impact Analysis

 ̄

Path: H:\AllAboardFlorida\Task1\MXD\WPB Yard - Construction Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis.mxd

Project # 6063-12-0212

All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project

0 500 Feet

Data Sources: ESRI 2012, FRA 2012, FGDL 2012, AMEC 2014.

Existing FECR R/W

Explanation of Features

Yard Construction Boundary

Noise Impact Contour, Category 2, Day (55 ft)

Noise Impact Contour, Category 2, Night (180 ft)

Vibration Impact Contour, Category 2 (75 ft)

Vibration Impact Contour, Category 3 (60 ft)

4-9
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics,

CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,

swisstopo, and the GIS User Community, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia,

© OpenStreetMap contributors

Construction Noise & Vibration Impact Analysis

 ̄

Path: H:\AllAboardFlorida\Task1\MXD\WPB Yard - Construction Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis.mxd

Project # 6063-12-0212

All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project

0 500 Feet

Data Sources: ESRI 2012, FRA 2012, FGDL 2012, AMEC 2014.

Existing FECR R/W

Explanation of Features

Yard Construction Boundary

Noise Impact Contour, Category 2, Day (55 ft)

Noise Impact Contour, Category 2, Night (180 ft)

Vibration Impact Contour, Catgeory 2 (75 ft)

Vibration Impact Contour, Catgeory 3 (60 ft)

4-10
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Affected Environment, Environmental 4‐38 October 2014

Consequences, and Mitigation    

Table 4-19 Construction Noise Impact Assessment 

Parameter Day (0700-2200) Night (2200-0700) 

Noise Level (dBA) at 50 feet 91.2 91.2 

Impact Criteria (one-hour Leq) 90 80 

Residential Impact Contour (feet) 55 180 

Number of Impacted Parcels 19 67 

Source: AMEC. 2014. Addendum to Environmental Assessment Reevaluation of Potential Environmental Impacts of the Proposed West 

Palm Beach Rail Yard for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project from West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. July 2014. 

Construction	noise	would	be	monitored	by	AAF	to	verify	compliance	with	local	ordinances	and	county	noise	

restrictions,	 such	 as	 the	Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code, Article 5 – Supplementary

Standards,16 which	includes	county‐wide	restrictions	on	construction	noise.	All	necessary	permits	would	be	

obtained,	anticipated	exceedances	would	be	outlined,	and	noise	impacts	would	be	limited	to	daytime	hours.	

The	 contractor	 would	 prohibit	 certain	 noise‐generating	 activities	 during	 nighttime	 hours	 and	 provide	

additional	noise	control	measures	to	meet	the	noise	restrictions,	as	necessary.		

To	meet	required	noise	restrictions,	AAF	would	require	all	contractors	to	implement	the	following	noise	

control	measures,	as	required	by	the	Palm	Beach	Code:	

x Avoid	nighttime	construction	in	residential	neighborhoods;	

x Locate	stationary	construction	equipment	as	far	as	possible	from	noise	sensitive	sites;	

x Route	construction‐related	truck	traffic	along	roadways	that	would	cause	the	least	disturbance	to	

residents;	

x Monitor	and	maintain	equipment	to	meet	noise	limits;	

x Minimize	using	generators	to	power	equipment;	

x Limit	using	public	address	systems;	and	

x Limit	or	avoid	certain	noisy	activities	during	nighttime	hours	such	as	aboveground	jackhammering	

and	impact	pile	driving.	

These	proposed	measures	would	reduce	the	limited	and	temporary	construction	noise	impacts	from	the	

Project.	It	is	unlikely	that	all	residential	construction	noise	impacts	can	be	eliminated	because	noise	levels	

from	any	typical	construction	project	would	likely	exceed	the	criteria	provided	in	the	Palm Beach County

Unified Land Development Code.	However,	the	contractors	would	follow	best	practices	and	employ	the	

noise	reduction	measures	listed	above.	Construction	noise	would	be	limited	to	the	daytime,	in	order	to	

eliminate	nighttime	impacts.	AAF	would	be	required	to	comply	with	local	regulations	to	ensure	that	the	

work	is	performed	in	accordance	with	local	ordinances	and	county	codes.	

16 Available at http://www.pbcgov.com/pzb/ePZB/pdfarticles.htm 
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Affected Environment, Environmental 4‐39 October 2014

Consequences, and Mitigation    

Vibration 

Construction	vibration	was	assessed	to	determine	the	potential	for	human	annoyance	impacts	as	well	as	

potential	 structural	 damage	 to	 vibration‐sensitive	 buildings.	 Vibration	 levels	 from	 the	 piece	 of	

construction	equipment	estimated	to	produce	the	most	severe	impacts	(large	bulldozer)	were	assessed,	

based	on	the	methodology	outlined	in	the	FTA	Manual.		

For	human	annoyance	impacts,	construction	vibration	was	calculated	in	root	mean	square	(rms)	velocity	

levels	 expressed	 in	 vibration	 decibels,	 similar	 to	 operations	 noise	 and	 vibration	 assessments.	

Construction	 vibration	 is	 analyzed	 in	 terms	 of	 peak	 particle	 velocity	 (PPV)	 for	 potential	 structural	

impacts.	Because	the	source	PPV	of	a	large	bulldozer	does	not	exceed	the	most	stringent	FRA	structural	

vibration	impact	criteria,	a	full	structural	impact	assessment	was	not	necessary.	No	structural	vibration	

impacts	would	occur	in	the	Project	Area.	

A	summary	of	Construction	Vibration	Impact	Assessments	is	presented	in	Table	4‐20.	This	table	shows	

the	source	levels	of	a	large	bulldozer,	FTA	impact	criteria,	impact	contour	distances,	and	the	number	of	

parcels	affected	 (25	Category	2	parcels	and	12	Category	3	parcels	would	be	impacted).	Analysis	was	

performed	for	Category	2	and	Category	3	parcels,	as	there	are	no	Category	1	parcels	near	the	Project	Area.	

Impact	contours	were	determined	by	propagating	the	source	vibration	levels	outward	from	either	the	

FECR	Corridor	(away	from	the	WPB	Rail	Yard)	or	the	Heavy	Construction	Equipment	Boundary	(along	

the	west	side	of	the	WPB	Rail	Yard)	until	levels	no	longer	exceeded	applicable	impact	criteria.	

Table 4-20 Construction Vibration Impacts 

Parameter (Large Bulldozer) Category 2 Category 3 

Vibration Level at 25 ft (VdB1) 87 87 

Impact Criteria (VdB1) 72 75 

Impact Contour Distance (ft) 75 60 

Number of Impacted Parcels 25 12 

Source: AMEC. 2014. Addendum to Environmental Assessment Reevaluation of Potential Environmental Impacts of the Proposed West 

Palm Beach Rail Yard for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project from West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. July 2014. 

1 re 1 μin/ s 

Mitigation	measures	are	available	 to	help	reduce	expected	vibration	levels;	however,	 the	information	

available	 during	 the	 preliminary	 engineering	 phase	 is	 not	 sufficient	 to	 define	 specific	 construction	

vibration	mitigation	measures.		AAF	would	develop	and	implement	a	mitigation	plan	during	 the	 final	

design	and	construction	phases	of	the	Project.	No	structural	damage	is	anticipated	and	vibration	impacts	

would	 be	 annoyance‐based;	 therefore,	 the	 following	 are	 potential	 mitigation	 measures	 that	 may	 be	

considered	and	implemented	during	final	design	and	construction:	

x Operate	earth‐moving	equipment	on	the	construction	lot	as	far	away	from	vibration‐sensitive	sites	

as	possible.	
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Affected Environment, Environmental 4‐40 October 2014

Consequences, and Mitigation    

x Phase	demolition,	earth‐moving,	and	ground‐impacting	operations	so	as	not	to	occur	in	the	same	time	

period.	Unlike	noise,	the	total	vibration	level	produced	could	be	significantly	less	when	each	vibration	

source	operates	separately.	

x Avoid	nighttime	construction	activities.	

4.11.3 Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste 

Based	on	upgrades	currently	planned	within	the	existing	FECR	Corridor,	and	at	the	WPB	Rail	Yard,	the	

Project	 should	 not	encounter	 contaminated	 soil	and/or	groundwater.	 In	 the	event	it	is	 necessary	 for	

construction	activities	to	occur	in	contaminated	areas,	AAF	would	conduct	a	Phase	II	investigation.	If	the	

construction	 of	 the	 Project	 cannot	 avoid	 contaminated	 sites,	 AAF	 would	 develop	 technical	 special	

provisions,	 such	 as	 Remedial	 Action	 Plans,	 as	 part	 of	 the	 Phase	 II	investigation.	 Further,	 AAF	 would	

minimize	 impacts	 from	 all	 known	 contamination	 through	 remedial	 actions	 prior	 to	 construction.	 If	

ground‐disturbing	 activities	 encounter	 any	 contaminated	 or	 hazardous	 wastes	 during	 construction,	

contractors	would	handle	and	dispose	of	these	materials	in	accordance	with	regulatory	requirements.	

The	Project	would	generate	construction	and	demolition	waste	such	as	used	railroad	ties,	steel	rail,	excess	

soil,	rock,	organic	material,	asphalt,	concrete,	and	wood.	Contractors	would	handle,	transport,	and	dispose	

all	construction	and	demolition	waste	according	to	federal,	state,	and	local	regulations	as	well	as	industry	

BMPs.	Contractors	would	recycle	materials	to	the	extent	practicable.		

4.11.4 Social and Economic 

The	Project	would	result	in	construction	jobs,	which	would	produce	socioeconomic	benefits	in	the	form	

of	additional	jobs	and	labor	income.	The	number	of	construction	jobs	has	yet	to	be	determined.	

4.12 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts 

As	previously	described	in	this	chapter,	the	Project	would	result	in	direct	impacts	to	a	range	of	resources.	

This	 section	 considers	 those	 direct	 impacts	 in	 conjunction	 with	 the	 Project’s	 potential	 indirect	 or	

secondary	impacts,	along	with	the	cumulative	impacts	that	could	result	from	the	incremental	impact	of	

the	Project	when	added	to	other	past,	present,	and	reasonably	foreseeable	future	actions.	The	information	

provided	in	this	section	is	consistent	with	CEQ	and	other	agency	guidance	documents:	

x Considering	Cumulative	Effects	Under	the	National	Environmental	Policy	Act	(CEQ	1997b);	

x Guidance	on	the	Consideration	of	Past	Actions	in	Cumulative	Effects	Analysis	(CEQ	2005b);	

x Secondary	and	Cumulative	Impact	Assessment	in	the	Highway	Project	Development	Process	(FHWA	

1992);	

x Interim	Guidance:	Questions	and	Answers	Regarding	Indirect	and	Cumulative	Impact	Considerations	

in	the	NEPA	Process	(FHWA	2003);	and	

x Cumulative	Effects	Evaluation	Handbook	(FDOT	2012).	
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Affected Environment, Environmental 4‐41 October 2014

Consequences, and Mitigation    

4.12.1.1 Potential Secondary Impacts 

The	Project	would	not	result	in	indirect	adverse	impacts	to	the	resource	areas	discussed	in	this	chapter.	

However,	it	would	 have	 an	indirect	 beneficial	impact	 to	local	 economic	 conditions	 through	 personal	

spending	 attributable	 to	 the	 20	 to	 30	 permanent	 operational	 jobs	 and	 an	 undetermined	 number	 of	

temporary	construction	jobs.		

Additionally,	the	Project	would	support	the	overall	AAF	passenger	rail	project	from	West	Palm	Beach	to	

Miami,	which	would:	

x Enhance	 regional	 roadway	 transportation	 by	 reducing	 the	 number	 of	 vehicles	 on	 the	 regional	

network,	thereby	providing	additional	transportation	capacity	and	decreasing	roadway	congestions	

and	the	potential	for	vehicular	accidents	between	West	Palm	Beach	and	Miami;	

x Improve	overall	air	quality	and	decrease	use	of	petroleum‐based	 fuels	as	a	result	of	 the	potential	

reduction	in	regional	vehicle	miles	traveled;	

x Improve	accessibility	and	mobility	between	West	Palm	Beach	and	Miami	by	offering	an	alternative	

transportation	option;	

x Result	in	 the	 potential	 for	additional	economic	 value	 from	induced	 transit‐oriented	 development	

associated	with	the	new	passenger	rail	stations	in	West	Palm	Beach,	Fort	Lauderdale,	and	Miami;	and	

x Increase	local	and	regional	economic	activity	through	the	generation	of	jobs	(i.e.,	local	labor	income),	

additional	tax	revenues,	associated	direct	and	indirect	spending,	promotion	of	tourism,	and	savings	

realized	from	reduced	highway	maintenance	costs.	

4.12.1.2 Potential Cumulative Impacts 

The	CEQ	regulations	define	a	cumulative	impact	as		

“the	impact	on	the	environment	which	results	from	the	incremental	impact	of	the	action	when	

added	to	other	past,	present,	and	reasonably	foreseeable	future	actions	regardless	of	what	agency	

(federal	or	non‐federal)	or	person	undertakes	such	other	actions.	Cumulative	impacts	can	result	

from	individually	minor	but	collectively	significant	actions	taking	place	over	a	period	of	time.”17		

The	 intent	 of	 the	 cumulative	 impacts	 analysis	 is	 to	 determine	 the	 magnitude	 and	 significance	 of	

cumulative	impacts,	both	beneficial	and	adverse,	and	to	determine	the	contribution	of	the	Project	to	those	

aggregate	 impacts.	 The	 Project	 would	 not	 result	 in	 cumulative	 impacts	 that	 would	 be	 collectively	

significant	and	adverse.	Rather,	it	would	have	slight	beneficial	contributions	to	cumulative	impacts	by	

contributing	to	a	reduction	in	regional	vehicle	miles	traveled	(VMTs),	which	would	improve	air	quality	

and	congestion	on	the	regional	transportation	network.		

Cumulative	impacts	occur	when	a	proposed	project	(considered	in	conjunction	with	past,	present,	and	

future	activities):	

x Results	in	a	violation	of	state	water	quality	standards;	

17 40 CFR Part 1508.7
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Affected Environment, Environmental 4‐42 October 2014

Consequences, and Mitigation    

x Results	in	significant	adverse	impacts	to	 functions	of	wetlands	or	other	surface	waters	within	the	

same	drainage	basin,	when	considering	the	basin	as	a	whole;	and

x Results	in	jeopardizing	a	listed	 threatened	or	endangered	species	and/or	habitats	critical	 to	 their	

existence.	

This	evaluation	along	with	the	Phase	I	EA	and	the	Phase	II	DEIS	has	demonstrated	that	the	Project	would	

not	 create	 or	influence	 any	 of	 these	 conditions;	 therefore,	it	would	 not	 result	in	 adverse	 cumulative	

impacts.	

History	has	shown	that	transportation	improvement	projects	usually	have	cumulative	effects	in	terms	of	

new	residential	and	new	commercial	development.	However,	as	demonstrated	in	 the	Phase	 I	EA	and	

Phase	 II	DEIS,	changes	in	land	use	patterns,	population	density,	and	growth	rates	would	occur	in	 the	

region	regardless	of	the	Project.		

The	Project	is	consistent	with	strategies	and	policies	of	the	adopted	Strategic	Regional	Policy	Plan	of	the	

Treasure	Coast	Regional	Planning	Council,	which	includes	Palm	Beach	County.	Regional	Goal	7.1	of	this	

plan	identifies	the	region’s	desire	for	“a	balanced	and	integrated	transportation	system.”	Further,	Strategy	

7.1.1	of	the	Strategic	Regional	Policy	Plan	proposes	to	

“[d]evelop	a	balanced,	complete	and	fully	integrated	transportation	system	which,	as	a	minimum,	

includes	 the	 following:...(3)	 commuter	 rail	 service	with	 stations	linking	 the	 coastal	 cities	and	

towns	of	 the	Region,	(4)	a	regional	mass	 transit	system	linking	commuter	rail	stations,	major	

commercial	airports,	seaports,	colleges,	and	principle	urban	areas	within	the	Region.”	(TCRPC	

1995).	

For	these	reasons,	particularly	the	consistency	with	future	planning	objectives,	the	cumulative	impacts	of	

the	Project	would	not	be	adverse.	
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

List of Preparers 5‐1 October 2014

   

5 List of Preparers 

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.

Dr.	Lisa	A.	Standley	

Chief	Environmental	Scientist	

Technical	Document	Lead	

Ph.D.,	Botany,	University	of	Washington	

M.S.,	Botany,	Cornell	University	

B.S.,	Ecology	and	Systematics,	Cornell	University	

26	years	of	experience	in	environmental	consulting	

and	21	years	of	experience	in	preparing	NEPA	

documents	

Rick	Carey,	P.E.	

Northern	New	England	Director	of	Transit	&	Rail	

Rail	Engineering	

M.B.A.,	Bryant	College	

B.S.,	Engineering,	Civil,	Mechanical,	University	of	

Rhode	Island	

27	years	of	experience	in	passenger	and	freight	rail	

design	and	construction	initiatives		

Donny	Goris‐Kolb,	AICP,	LEED	Green	Associate	

Environmental	Planner	

SEA	Preparation,	Social	and	Economic	Impacts,	

Environmental	Justice	

M.U.P.,	University	at	Buffalo	

B.A.,	Sociology,	Binghamton	University	

6	years	of	experience	in	environmental	consulting	

and	preparing	NEPA	documents		

Paul	McKinlay,	PG,	LSP	

Director,	Oil	and	Hazardous	Materials	Services	

Hazardous	Materials	and	Solid	Waste	

M.A.,	Geology,	Boston	University	

B.A.,	Geology,	Boston	University	

Professional	Geologist,	New	Hampshire	and	

Licensed	Site	Professional	in	Massachusetts	

17	years	of	experience	in	Oil	and	Hazardous	

Materials		
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

List of Preparers 5‐2 October 2014

   

Charlie	Russo	

Environmental	Planner	

SEA	Preparation	

A.L.M.,	Sustainability	and	Environmental	

Management,	Harvard	University	Extension	School	

B.S.,	Journalism,	Syracuse	University	

8	years	of	experience	in	environmental	consulting	

document	preparation	

Autumn	Young	Ward	

Senior	Airport	Planner	

SEA	Preparation,	Noise	and	Vibration	

M.S.,	Aeronautics,	Embry	Riddle	Aeronautical	

University	

B.S.,	Aviation	Business	Administration,	Embry	

Riddle	Aeronautical	University	

11	years	of	experience	in	aviation	and	

transportation	with	9	years	of	experience	in	

preparing	NEPA	documents	

Tom	Wholley	

Director,	Air	Quality	and	Noise	Services	

Air	Quality		

B.S.,	Civil	Engineering,	University	of	Massachusetts	

42	years	of	professional	experience	in	air	quality	

and	noise	analyses	

HMMH

Jason	Ross,	P.E.	

Vice	President	

Noise	and	Vibration		

M.E.,	Acoustics,	Pennsylvania	State	University	

B.S.,	Mechanical	Engineering,	University	of	Colorado,	

Boulder	

15	years	of	experience	in	environmental	consulting	

and	rail	and	transit	noise	and	vibration	
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Acronyms, Abbreviations and Glossary 6‐1 October 2014

   

6 Acronyms, Abbreviations and 

Glossary 

Acronyms 

AADT	 Annual	Average	Daily	Traffic	

AAF	 All	Aboard	Florida	–	Operations	LLC		

ACS	 American	Community	Survey	

ADA	 Americans	with	Disabilities	Act		

APE	 Area	of	Potential	Effect	

AST	 above	ground	storage	tank	

BMP	 Best	Management	Practices	

CAA	 Clean	Air	Act	

CEQ		 President’s	Council	on	Environmental	Quality		

CFR		 Code	of	Federal	Regulation		

CH4		 methane	

CO		 carbon	monoxide	

COC	 Community	of	Comparison	

CO2		 carbon	dioxide	

CRAR	 Cultural	Resource	Assessment	Report	

CRM	 Cultural	Resource	Management	

dB	 decibels	

dBA	 A‐weighted	decibel	

DEIS	 Draft	Environmental	Impact	Statement	

EA	 Environmental	Assessment		

EDM	 Environmental	Data	Management,	Inc.		

EIS	 Environmental	Impact	Statement	

EO	 Executive	Order	

EPA	 United	States	Environmental	Protection	Agency		

FDEP	 Florida	Department	of	Environmental	Protection	
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Acronyms, Abbreviations and Glossary 6‐2 October 2014

   

FDHR	 Florida	Division	of	Historic	Resources	

FDOT	 Florida	Department	of	Transportation	

FECR	Corridor	 Florida	East	Coast	Corridor			

FECI	 Florida	East	Coast	Industries,	Inc.	

FECR	 Florida	East	Coast	Railway	LLC	

FHWA	 Federal	Highway	Administration	

FMSF	 Florida	Master	Site	File	

FONSI	 Finding	of	No	Significant	Impact	

FPL	 Florida	Power	&	Light	Company	

FRA	 Federal	Railroad	Administration	

GBN	 ground‐borne	noise	

GOAA	 Greater	Orlando	Airport	Authority	

I‐95	 Interstate	95	

LBG	 Louis	Berger	Group	

Ldn	 A‐weighted	average	day‐night	sound	level	

Leq(h)	 A‐weighted	hourly	equivalent	sound	level	

LUST	 Leaking	Underground	Storage	Tank	

MCO	 Orlando	International	Airport	

mph	 miles	per	hour	

N2O		 nitrous	oxide	

NAAQS	 National	Ambient	Air	Quality	Standards	

NEPA		 National	Environmental	Policy	Act		

NHPA	 National	Historic	Preservation	Act	

NO2 nitrogen	dioxide		

NOx oxides	of	nitrogen		

NPS	 National	Park	Service	

NRHP	 National	Register	of	Historic	Places	

O3 ozone		

Pb	 lead		

PD&E	 Project	Development	and	Environment	
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Acronyms, Abbreviations and Glossary 6‐3 October 2014

   

PL	 Public	Law	

PM10	 particulate	matter	sized	10	micrometers	or	less	

PM2.5	 particulate	matter	sized	2.5	micrometers	or	less		

RRIF		 Railroad	Rehabilitation	and	Improvement	Financing		

SEA	 Supplemental	Environmental	Assessment	

SEL	 Sound	Exposure	Level	

SHPO	 State	Historic	Preservation	Officer		

SIP	 State	Implementation	Plan	

SO2	 sulfur dioxide

SR	 State	Road	

TCRPC	 Treasure	Coast	Regional	Planning	Council	

U.S.C.	 United	States	Code	

USCB		 United	States	Census	Bureau	

USDOT		 United	States	Department	of	Transportation	

USFWS	 United	States	Fish	&	Wildlife	Service	

VdB	 vibration	decibels	

VMF	 Vehicle	Maintenance	Facility	

VMT		 vehicle	miles	traveled		

VOC	 volatile	organic	compound(s)	

WPB	 West	Palm	Beach	
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Acronyms, Abbreviations and Glossary 6‐4 October 2014

   

Glossary 

A	

Accessibility:	The	ease	with	which	a	site	or	facility	may	be	reached	by	passengers	and	others	necessary	

to	the	facility’s	intended	function.	Also,	the	extent	to	which	a	facility	is	usable	by	persons	with	disabilities,	

including	wheelchair	users.	

Adverse:	Negative	or	detrimental.	

Affected Environment:	The	physical,	biological,	social,	and	economic	setting	potentially	affected	by	one	

or	more	of	the	alternatives	under	consideration.	

Air Pollution:	A	general	term	that	refers	to	one	or	more	chemical	substances	that	degrade	the	quality	of	

the	atmosphere.	

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):	 Federal	 regulation	 establishing	 legal	 requirements	 for	

accessibility	for	those	with	disabilities.	

Area of Potential Effect (APE): The	area	potentially	affected	by	the	construction	and	operation	of	the	

Project;	 for	archaeological	 properties,	 considered	 to	 be	 the	area	 of	ground	 proposed	 to	 be	 disturbed	

during	construction	of	the	undertaking,	including	grading,	cut‐and‐fill,	easements,	staging	areas,	utility	

relocation,	borrow	pits,	and	biological	mitigation	areas;	 for	historic	architecture,	considered	 to	be	 the	

proposed	 construction	 footprint	 and	 properties	 near	 the	 undertaking	 where	 the	 undertaking	 would	

result	in	a	substantial	change	from	the	historic	use,	access,	or	noise	and	vibration	levels	that	were	present	

50	years	ago,	or	during	the	period	of	significance	of	a	property,	if	different.	

At‐Grade:	 At	 ground	 surface	 level;	 used	 to	 describe	 roadways,	 track	 alignments,	 and	 road‐track	

intersections.	

Attainment:	An	air	basin	is	considered	to	be	in	attainment	for	a	particular	pollutant	if	it	meets	the	federal	

or	state	standards	set	for	that	pollutant.	See	also	Maintenance and Nonattainment.

A‐Weighted Sound Level:	A	measure	of	sound	intensity	that	is	weighted	to	approximate	the	response	of	

the	human	ear	so	it	describes	the	way	sound	will	affect	people	in	the	vicinity	of	a	noise	source.	

B	

Baseline: Foundation	or	basis	to	use	for	comparison	purposes.	

Best Management Practices (BMPs):	 Methods	 designed	 to	 minimize	 adverse	 effects	 to	 the	

environment.	Examples	of	BMPs	include	practices	for	erosion	and	sedimentation	controls,	watering	for	

dust	control,	perimeter	silt	fences,	rice	straw	bales,	and	sediment	basins.	

C	

Carbon Dioxide (CO2):	 A	 colorless,	 odorless	 gas	 that	 occurs	 naturally	in	 the	 atmosphere;	 fossil	 fuel	

combustion	emits	significant	quantities	of	CO2.	

Carbon Monoxide (CO):	A	colorless,	odorless	gas	generated	in	the	urban	environment	primarily	by	the	

incomplete	combustion	of	fossil	fuels	in	motor	vehicles.	
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Acronyms, Abbreviations and Glossary 6‐5 October 2014

   

CleanAirAct (CAA):	The	law	that	defines	the	U.S.	Environmental	Protection	Agency’s	responsibilities	for	

protecting	and	improving	the	nation's	air	quality	and	the	stratospheric	ozone	layer.	The	CAA	protects	the	

general	public	from	exposure	to	airborne	contaminants	that	are	known	to	be	hazardous	to	human	health.	

Construction: The	act	or	process	of	building.		

Corridor:	 A	 geographic	 belt	 or	 band	 that	 follows	 the	 general	 route	 of	 a	 transportation	 facility	

(e.g.,	highway	or	railroad).	

Criteria Pollutants: Pollutants	for	which	federal	and	state	air	quality	standards	have	been	established:	

carbon	monoxide	(CO),	sulfur	oxides	(SOx),	nitrogen	oxides	(NOx),	ozone	(O3),	particulate	matter	with	a	

diameter	of	10	microns	or	less	(PM10),	particulate	matter	with	a	diameter	of	2.5	microns	or	less	(PM2.5),	

and	lead	(Pb).	

Cultural Resources:	Resources	related	to	the	tangible	and	intangible	aspects	of	cultural	systems,	living	

and	dead,	that	are	valued	by	a	given	culture	or	contain	information	about	the	culture.	Cultural	resources	

include,	 but	 are	 not	 limited	 to,	 sites,	 structures,	 buildings,	 districts,	 and	 objects	 associated	 with	 or	

representative	of	people,	cultures,	and	human	activities	and	events.	

Cumulative Impact:	 (1)	 CEQ	―	 the	 result	 of	 two	 or	more	individual	impacts	 that,	when	 considered	

together,	are	considerable	or	that	compound	or	increase	other	environmental	impacts;	(2)	NEPA	―	an	

impact	on	the	environment	that	results	from	the	incremental	impact	of	the	action	when	added	to	other	

past,	present,	and	reasonably	foreseeable	future	actions.	

D	

Decibel (dB):	A	logarithmic	measurement	of	noise	intensity.	

Degreasers:	Chemical	products/substances	that	remove	greases	and	oils	from	surfaces.		

Disproportionately HighAdverse Effects:	An	Environmental	Justice	term	used	to	describe	the	unequal	

treatment	to	low	income	and	minority	populations	as	a	result	of	a	proposed	project	and	action.	Executive	

Order	12898	directs	each	 federal	agency	to	identify	and	address	disproportionately	high	and	adverse	

human	health	or	environmental	effects	of	its	projects	and	actions.	

Disturbance:	A	discrete	natural	or	human‐induced	event	 that	causes	a	change	in	 the	condition	of	an	

ecological	system.	

E	

Ecosystem:	An	interconnected	network	of	living	organisms,	including	people,	and	their	local	physical	

environment;	often	viewed	as	an	ecological	unit.	

Effect:	A	change	in	the	condition	or	function	of	an	environmental	resource	or	environmental	value	as	a	

result	of	human	activity.	

Endangered Species: Any	species	listed	under	the	federal	Endangered	Species	Act	as	being	in	danger	of	

or	threatened	with	extinction	throughout	all	or	most	of	its	range.	

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): Documentation	 required	 by	 the	 National	 Environmental	

Policy	Act	(NEPA)	for	certain	actions	"significantly	affecting	the	quality	of	the	human	environment."		An	
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Acronyms, Abbreviations and Glossary 6‐6 October 2014

   

EIS	is	a	decision‐making	tool	that	presents	detailed	analysis	of	a	proposed	action	and	alternatives	to	the	

proposed	action.	The	EIS	presents	the	project’s	potential	effects	–	both	beneficial	and	adverse	–	and	any	

mitigation	measures	to	reduce	adverse	effects.	

Environmental Justice: Identifying	 and	 addressing	 the	 potential	 for	 disproportionately	 high	 and	

adverse	effects	of	programs,	policies,	and	activities	on	minority	and	low‐income	populations.	

Ethnicity:	A	grouping	or	categorization	of	people	based	on	shared	cultural	traits	such	as	ancestral	origin,	

language,	custom,	or	social	attitude.	

F	

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA): An	agency	within	the	U.S.	Department	of	Transportation	that	

administers	financial	assistance	programs	and	regulates	the	operation	and	safety	of	freight	and	passenger	

rail	throughout	the	United	States.	

Footprint: The	area	covered	by	a	facility	or	affected	by	construction	activities.	

G	

General Conformity Rule: The	 requirement	 that	 federal,	 state,	 tribal,	 and	 local	 governments	 in	 air	

quality	 nonattainment	 or	 maintenance	 areas	 ensure	 that	 federal	 actions	 conform	 to	 the	 initiatives	

established	in	the	applicable	state	implementation	plan	or	tribal	implementation	plan.	

Grade Crossing: The	 intersection	 of	 a	 railroad	 and	 a	 highway	 at	 the	 same	 elevation	 (grade);	 an	

intersection	of	two	or	more	highways;	an	intersection	of	two	railroads.	Same	as	at‐grade	crossing.		

Greater Orlando Airport Authority (GOAA):	Operating	agency	for	the	Orlando	International	Airport	

and	Orlando	Executive	Airport	in	Orlando,	Florida.		

Greenhouse Gases: A	class	of	air	pollutants	believed	to	contribute	to	the	greenhouse	global	warming	

effect,	including	nitrogen	oxides	(NOx),	hydrocarbons	(HC),	and	carbon	dioxide	(CO2).	

Groundwater:	Water	contained	and	transmitted	through	open	spaces	within	rock	and	sediment	below	

the	ground	surface.	

H	

Habitat: An	environment	where	plants	or	animals	naturally	occur;	an	ecological	setting	used	by	animals	

for	a	particular	purpose	(e.g.,	roosting	habitat	or	breeding	habitat).	

Hazardous Materials:	Any	material	 that,	because	of	quantity,	concentration,	or	physical	or	chemical	

characteristics,	 poses	 a	 significant	 present	 or	 potential	 hazard	 to	 human	 health	 and	 safety,	 or	 the	

environment,	if	released.	

Hazardous Waste:	A	hazardous	material	 that	is	no	longer	of	use	and	will	be	disposed	of.	Hazardous	

waste	is	regulated	by	the	U.S.	Environmental	Protection	Agency	under	the	Resource	Conservation	and	

Recovery	Act.	

Hydrocarbons: Various	organic	compounds,	including	methane,	emitted	principally	from	the	storage,	

handling,	and	combustion	of	fossil	fuels.	
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Acronyms, Abbreviations and Glossary 6‐7 October 2014

   

I	

Impact: A	change	in	the	condition	or	function	of	an	environmental	resource	or	environmental	value	as	a	

result	of	human	activity.	

Indirect Impact: The	 consequences	 of	 a	 project’s	 direct	 impacts.	 These	 impacts	 are	 generally	 not	

quantifiable	and	may	occur	over	a	larger	area	or	a	longer	period.	

Infrastructure:The	facilities	required	for	a	societal	function	or	service	(such	as	transportation	and	utility	

infrastructure	–	roads,	bridges,	railroads,	pipelines,	power	lines,	etc.).	

Intermodal:	Transportation	that	involves	more	than	one	mode	(e.g.,	walk,	bike,	auto,	transit,	taxi,	train,	

bus,	and	air)	during	a	single	journey.	

Intermodal Station: A	 transit	 station	 that	 provides	 connections	 among	 more	 than	 one	 mode	 of	

transportation.	

L	

Lead (Pb): A	 stable	 element	 that	 can	 have	 toxic	 effects	 and	 that	 persists	 and	 accumulates	 in	 the	

environment,	humans,	or	animals.	

Lead Agency:	The	public	agency	 that	has	 the	principal	responsibility	 for	carrying	out	or	approving	a	

project	or	action	and	is	responsible	for	preparing	environmental	review	documents	in	compliance	with	

CEQ	and/or	NEPA.	

Leq: A	measure	of	the	average	noise	level	during	a	specified	period	of	time.	

Leq(h), dBA:	Equivalent	or	average	noise	level	for	the	noisiest	hour,	expressed	in	A‐weighted	decibels.	

M	

Maintenance:	An	air	basin	that	was	formerly	in	nonattainment	but	now	meets	the	established	standards	

for	that	pollutant.	See	also	Attainment	and	Nonattainment.	

Mitigation: Action	or	measure	undertaken	to	minimize,	reduce,	eliminate,	or	rectify	the	adverse	impacts	

of	a	project,	practice,	action,	or	activity.	

Mobility: Movement	of	people	across	areas.

N	

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): Federal	 standards	 stipulating	 the	 allowable	

ambient	concentrations	of	specific	criteria	pollutants.	

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA):	Federal	legislation	that	establishes	national	policies	and	

goals	for	the	protection	of	the	environment	and	requires	federal	agencies	to	consider	the	environmental	

impacts	of	major	federal	projects	or	decisions,	to	share	information	with	the	public,	to	identify	and	assess	

reasonable	alternatives,	to	identify	appropriate	measures	to	mitigate	potential	impacts,	and	to	coordinate	

efforts	with	other	planning	and	environmental	reviews	taking	place.	Codified	at:	42	U.S.C.A.	§	4331	et	seq.	

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx):	A	class	of	pollutant	compounds	that	include	nitrogen	dioxide	(NO2)	and	nitric	

oxide	(NO),	both	of	which	are	emitted	by	motor	vehicles.	See	Criteria Pollutants.	
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Acronyms, Abbreviations and Glossary 6‐8 October 2014

   

Nonattainment: An	air	basin	that	exceeds	federal	or	state	standards	for	a	particular	pollutant.	

See	also	Attainment	and	Maintenance.	

O	

Ozone (O3): A	 photochemical	 oxidant	 that	 is	 a	 major	 cause	 of	 lung	 and	 eye	 irritation	 in	 urban	

environments.	

P	

Particulate Pollution:	 Air	 pollution	 such	 as	 dust,	 soot,	 and	 smoke	 that	 is	 irritating	 but	 usually	 not	

poisonous.	 Particulate	 pollution	 also	 can	 include	 bits	 of	 highly	 toxic	 solid	 or	 liquid	 substances.	 Of	

particular	concern	are	particles	smaller	than,	or	equal	to,	10	microns	(PM10)	or	2.5	microns	(PM2.5)	in	size.	

Phase II Investigation: Part	of	an	Environmental	Site	Assessment,	which	assesses	whether	identified	

historic	on‐site	or	off‐site	hazardous	uses	have	impacted	the	soil	and/or	groundwater	conditions	beneath	

a	property.		

Potentially Contaminated Site:	 Land	 that	 may	 contain	 substances	 in	 or	 under	 the	 land	 that	 are

potentially	hazardous	to	health	or	the	environment,	but	have	not	been	tested	yet	for	contamination.	

Poverty Level:	The	income	at	which	a	family	or	individual	is	considered	poor.	In	2009	the	U.S.	Census	

Bureau	defined	the	poverty	level	for	a	family	of	four	as	an	income	of	$21,954	or	less.	

Practicable:	Available	and	capable	of	being	done	after	taking	into	consideration	cost,	existing	technology,	

and	logistics	in	light	of	overall	project	purposes.	

Purpose and Need: The	reason(s)	why	a	project	or	action	is	undertaken,	and	the	need(s)	it	is	intended	

to	meet	or	fulfill.	

R	

Reasonably Foreseeable FutureAction:Those	future	actions	that	are	likely	to	occur	or	probable,	rather	

than	those	that	are	merely	possible.	Used	in	determining	indirect	and	cumulative	impacts	for	a	Proposed	

Action.		

Right‐of‐Way:	A	legal	right	of	passage	over	a	defined	area	of	real	property.	In	transit	usage,	the	corridor	

along	a	roadway	or	railway	that	is	controlled	by	a	transit	or	transportation	agency/authority.	

S	

Secondary Impact: Reasonably	 foreseeable	 indirect	 consequences	 to	 the	 environment	 caused	 by	 a	

proposed	project	that	would	occur	either	in	the	future	or	in	the	vicinity	of,	but	not	the	same	location	as,	

the	direct	impacts	associated	with	the	project.	

Section 4(f):	Provisions	originally	enacted	as	Section	4(f)	of	the	U.S.	Department	of	Transportation	Act	of	

1966	codified	in	49	United	States	Code,	Subtitle	I,	Section	303(c).	Section	4(f)	addresses	the	potential	for	

conflicts	 between	 transportation	 needs	 and	 the	 protection	 of	land	 for	 recreational	 use	 and	 resource	

conservation	by	providing	protection	for	publicly	owned	parkland,	recreation	areas,	and	historic	sites	

from	 use.	 Specifically,	 the	 provisions	 prohibit	 the	 Secretary	 of	 Transportation	 from	 approving	 any	

program	or	project	that	would	require	the	use	of	any	publicly	owned	land	from	a	public	park,	recreation	
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Acronyms, Abbreviations and Glossary 6‐9 October 2014

   

area,	wildlife	or	waterfowl	refuge,	or	land	of	an	historic	site	of	national	significance	as	determined	by	the	

officials	having	jurisdiction	over	these	lands	unless	there	are	no	feasible	and	prudent	alternatives	to	the	

use	of	these	lands.	

Section 6(f):	Section	6(f)	of	the	Land	and	Water	Conservation	Fund	Act	of	1964	prohibits	the	conversion	

of	 property	acquired	 or	 developed	with	 funds	 granted	 through	 the	 act	 to	 a	 nonrecreational	 purpose	

without	the	approval	of	the	National	Park	Service.	Section	6(f)	directs	the	

Department	of	 the	 Interior	 to	ensure	 that	replacement	lands	of	equal	value	(monetary),	location,	and	

usefulness	are	provided	as	conditions	to	such	conversions.	

Sensitive Receiver: Noise‐sensitive	locations	where	increased	annoyance	can	occur,	such	as	residences,	

schools,	hotels/motels,	medical	facilities,	or	other	vibration‐sensitive	receivers.	

Sensitive Receptors:	 Locations	 considered	more	 sensitive	 to	adverse	effects	 from	air	 pollution	 (e.g.,	

residences;	preschools	and	kindergarten	through	grade	12	schools;	daycare	centers;	health‐care	facilities	

such	as	hospitals,	retirement	homes,	and	nursing	homes;	and	parks	and/or	playgrounds).	

Significant: In	 CEQ	 usage,	 describes	 an	 impact	 that	 is	 sufficiently	 adverse,	 intense,	 or	 prolonged	 to	

require	mitigation.	In	NEPA,	to	determine	an	impact	is	significant	the	context	and	intensity	(the	degree	to	

which	 the	effects	on	quality	of	human	environment	are	controversial,	whether	 the	action	 threatens	a	

violation	of	federal,	state	or	local	law,	and	others)	of	the	action	must	be	considered.		

Sound Exposure Level (SEL): A	time‐integrated	metric	(i.e.,	continuously	summed	over	a	time

period)	that	quantifies	the	total	energy	in	the	A‐weighted	sound	level	measured	during	a	transient	

noise	event.	SEL	accounts	for	both	the	duration	and	the	loudness	of	a	noise	event.	

State Implementation Plan (SIP): Statewide	plan	for	complying	with	the	federal	Clean	Air	Act.	The	SIP	

consists	of	narrative,	rules,	and	agreements	that	Florida	will	use	to	clean	up	polluted	areas.	

Sulfur Oxides (SOx):	 Sulfur‐oxygen	 compounds	 that	include	 the	important	 criteria	 pollutants	 sulfur	

dioxide	(SO2)	and	sulfur	trioxide	(SO3).	

T	

Train set:	A	complete	single	train,	including	engine(s)	and	cars.	

Travel Time:	The	time	spent	traveling	from	a	place	of	origin	to	a	place	of	destination.	Total	travel	time	

includes	the	time	required	to	reach	a	station	or	an	airport,	time	spent	waiting	for	the next	scheduled	train	

or	flight,	time	spent	getting	to	the	boarding	area,	time	spent	checking	and retrieving	luggage,	time	spent	

getting	a	rental	car	or	taxi,	as	well	as	time	spent	to	reach	the	final destination.	

V	

Vehicle Maintenance Facility (VMF): A	dedicated	facility	for	vehicle	fueling,	maintenance,	repair	and	

washing.		

Vibration:		A	rapid	linear	motion	of	a	particle	or	of	an	elastic	solid	about	an	equilibrium	position.	
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Acronyms, Abbreviations and Glossary 6‐10 October 2014

   

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs):	 Colorless	 gaseous	 compounds	 originating,	 in	 part,	 from	 the	

evaporation	and	incomplete	combustion	of	fuels.	In	the	presence	of	sunlight	VOCs	react	to	form	ozone,	a	

pollutant	regulated	by	the	Clean	Air	Act	Amendments.	
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

References 7‐1 October 2014

   

7 References 

All	Aboard	Florida	(AAF).	2012.	Environmental	Assessment	and	Section	4(f)	Evaluation	for	the	All	

Aboard	Florida	Passenger	Rail	Project	West	Palm	Beach	to	Miami,	Florida.	

http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04278.	Accessed	August	18,	2014.	

AMEC	Environment	&	Infrastructure,	Inc.	2014a.	Addendum	to	Environmental	Assessment	Reevaluation	

of	Potential	Environmental	Impacts	of	the	Proposed	West	Palm	Beach	Rail	Yard	for	the	All	Aboard	

Florida	Passenger	Rail	Project	from	West	Palm	Beach	to	Miami,	Florida.		

________.	2014b.	All	Aboard	Florida	Proposed	West	Palm	Beach	Rail	Yard	Noise	and	Vibration	

Supplemental	Assessment	Report.	

Council	on	Environmental	Quality	(CEQ).	1997a.	Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National

Environmental Policy Act.

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/resources/policy/ej_guidance_nepa_ceq1297.pdf.	December	10,	

1997.	Accessed	August	18,	2014.	

________.	1997b.	Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act.	

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/G‐CEQ‐ConsidCumulEffects.pdf.	

January	1997.	Accessed	August	18,	2014.	

________.	2005a.	Code	of	Federal	Regulations	(CFR)	‐	40	CFR	Parts	1500	‐	1508:	Regulations	for	

Implementing	the	Procedural	Provisions	of	the	National	Environmental	Policy	Act.	

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/NEPA‐40CFR1500_1508.pdf.	Accessed	August	18,	2014.	

________.	2005b.	Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actionsin Cumulative Effects Analysis.	

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/G‐CEQ‐

PastActsCumulEffects.pdf.	June	24,	2005.	Accessed	August	18,	2014.	

Eco	Advisors,	LLC.	2012.	Limited	Site	Assessment	Report.	

Environmental	Data	Management,	Inc.	(EDM).	2014.	Florida	Department	of	Environmental	Protection	

(FDEP).	2013.	http://depedms.dep.state.fl.us/Oculus/servlet/login.	Accessed	August	18,	2014.	

Florida	Department	of	Environmental	Protection	(FDEP).	2013a.	24 Florida Statutes of the Florida

Coastal Management Program.	http://www.dep.state.fl.us/cmp/federal/24_statutes.htm.	June	26,	2014.	

Accessed	August	18,	2014.	

________.	2013b.	Florida’s Air Quality System (FLAQS).

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/air/air_quality/airdata.htm.	August	4,	2014.	Accessed	August	18,	2014.	

________.	2013c.	Subsidence Incident Report locationsin a KMZ file.

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/geology/gisdatamaps/SIRs_database.htm.	March	6,	2014.	Accessed	

August		18,	2014.		
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

References 7‐2 October 2014

   

Florida	Department	of	State.	2002.	Compliance and Review: Cultural Resources Management Standards &

Operational Manual.	Division	of	Historical	Resources.	

http://www.flheritage.com/preservation/compliance/manual.cfm.	Accessed	August 18, 2014.	

Florida	Department	of	Transportation	(FDOT).	2008.	Project Development and Environment Guidelines

Manual (PD&E Manual).	http://www.dot.state.fl.us/emo/pubs/pdeman/pdeman1.shtm.	Accessed	

August	18,	2014.	

________.	2011.	Florida Department of Transportation, Project Development and Environment Manual.

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/emo/pubs/pdeman/Pt2ch17_052411‐current.pdf.	May	24,	2011.	Accessed	

August	18,	2014.	

________.	2012.	Cumulative Effects Evaluation Handbook.	http://www.dot.state.fl.us/emo/pubs/CEE/CEE‐

Handbook‐2012‐1218.pdf.	August	18,	2014.	

________.	2013.	Florida Traffic Online.	http://www2.dot.state.fl.us/FloridaTrafficOnline/viewer.html.	

August	18,	2014.

Federal	Highway	Administration	(FHWA).	1992.	NEPA and Transportation Decisionmaking – Secondary

and Cumulative Assessment in the Highway Project Development Process.

www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/tdm2_c_imp.asp.	Accessed	August	18,	2014.		

________.	1997.	Department	of	Transportation	Order	5610.2(a):	Final	DOT	Environmental	Justice	Order.	

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/environmental_justice/ej_at_dot/orders/order_56102a/.	Accessed	

August	18,	2014.		

________.	2003.	Questions and Answers Regarding Indirect and Cumulative Impact Considerationsin the

NEPA Process. http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/guidebook/qaimpact.asp.	Accessed	August	18,	2014.	

Federal	Railroad	Administration	(FRA).	Undated.	Highway‐Rail Crossing Inventory Data.	

http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/publicsite/Downloaddbf.aspx.	Accessed	August	18,	2014.	

________.	1999.	64 FR 28545: Proceduresfor Considering Environmental Impacts.	

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐1999‐05‐26/pdf/99‐13262.pdf	&	

https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L02710.	Accessed	August	18,	2014.	

________.	2012.	High‐Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, USDOT Report

Number DOT/FRA/ORD‐12/15.	http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1238511.	Accessed	August	18,	2014.	

________.	2013.	Finding of No Significant Impact for the All Aboard Passenger Rail Project West Palm Beach

to Miami, Florida.	http://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Details/L04277.	August	18,	2014.		

________.	2014.	49	CFR	part	260:	Regulations	Governing	Loans	and	Loan	Guarantees	Under	the	Railroad	

Rehabilitation	and	Improvement	Financing	Program	(RRIF).	https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0518	and	

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi‐bin/text‐

idx?c=ecfr;sid=716e88fbb03151dea755d938e3db603c;rgn=div5;view=text;node=49%3A4.1.1.1.41;idno=49;c

c=ecfr.	Accessed	August	18,	2014.	

Federal	Transit	Administration	(FTA).	2006.	Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.	USDOT	

Report	Number	FTA‐VA‐90‐1003‐06,	May	2006.	
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

References 7‐3 October 2014

   

Janus	Research,	Inc.	2013.	Cultural	Resources	Assessment	Report	for	the	All	Aboard	Florida	Passenger	

Rail	Project	from	Orlando	to	West	Palm	Beach.	Technical	Report.

Kennedy,	William	J.,	Charles	Robert,	Shih‐Lung	Shaw,	and	Ryan	Wheeler.	1991.	Prehistoric Resourcesin

Palm Beach County: A Preliminary Prediction Study.	Florida	Atlantic	University,	Boca	Raton.	

National	Park	Service	(NPS).	1981.	National Register Federal Program Regulations.	

http://www.nps.gov/nr/regulations.htm.	Accessed	October	8,	2014.	

________.	2002.	How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation Bulletin.	

http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/.	Accessed	August 18, 2014.	

Treasure	Coast	Regional	Planning	Council	(TCRPC).	1995.	The	Strategic	Regional	Policy	Plan.	

http://www.tcrpc.org/publications/srpp‐toc.html.	Accessed	August	29,	2014.	

United	States	Census	Bureau	(USCB).	2010a.	Census 2010. http://factfinder2.census.gov/.	Accessed	

August	18,	2014.		

________.	2010b.	U.S.	Census	Tracts	in	Florida	(with	Selected	Fields	from	2010	Summary	File	1).	

http://www.census.gov.	Accessed	August	20,	2014.	

________.	2011a.	2007‐2011 American Community Survey 5‐Year Estimates: Total Population.

http://factfinder2.census.gov/. Accessed	August	20,	2014.

________.	2011b.	https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/thresh11.xls.	Accessed	

August	18,	2014.

United	States	Department	of	Justice	(DOJ).	1990.	The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Revised

ADA RegulationsImplementing Title II and Title III. http://www.ada.gov/2010_regs.htm.	Accessed	

August	18,	2014.	

United	States	Environmental	Protection	Agency	(EPA).	1976.	About Sound.	Washington,	D.C.:	

U.S.			Environmental	Protection	Agency,	Office	of	Noise	Abatement	and	Control.	

________.	1990.	Clean Air Act. http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/.	Accessed	August	18,	2014.	

________.	1994a.	Executive	Order	12898:	Federal	Actions	to	Address	Environmental	Justice	in	Minority	

Populations	and	Low‐Income	Populations.	http://www.epa.gov/fedreg/eo/eo12898.htm.	Accessed	

August	18,	2014.	

________.	1994b.	Energy Efficiency Reference for Environmental Reviewers.

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/nepa/energy‐efficiency‐reference‐pg.pdf.	

Accessed	August	18,	2014.	

________.	2012a.	40 CFR part 50: National Ambient Air Quality Standards(NAAQS).

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/.	Accessed	August	18,	2014.	

________.	2012b.	Green Book of Attainment. http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/.	Accessed	

August	18,	2014.	
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

References 7‐4 October 2014

   

This page intentionally left blank.
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Distribution List 8‐1 October 2014

   

8 Distribution List 

This	Supplemental	EA	is	being	distributed	to	Federal,	state	and	municipal	agencies	and	to	the	interested	

parties	listed	below.	This	list	includes	those	entities	that	the	Federal	Railroad	Administration’s	Procedures

for Considering Environmental Impacts	 require	 as	 part	 of	 the	 review	 of	 the	 document,	 including	

representatives	of	government	agencies	and	community	groups	concerned	with	the	Proposed	Project.	

Copies	 of	 this	 EA	 are	 also	 available	 at	 the	 libraries	 listed	 below	 and	 through	 the	 FRA	 website	

(https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0672).	For	more	information	regarding	this	document	or	for	additional	

copies	of	this	report	please	contact:	

John	Winkle	

FRA	Environmental	Specialist	

Office	of	Railroad	Policy	and	Development	

1200	New	Jersey	Ave.	SE	

Washington,	D.C.	20590	

(202)	493‐6067	

john.winkle@dot.gov	

Federal Elected Officials 

x Senator	Bill	Nelson	

x Senator	Marco	Rubio	

x Representative	Alcee	Hasting	(District	20)	

x Representative	Theodore	Deutch	(District	21)	

x Representative	Lois	Frankel	(District	22)	

Federal Agencies 

x Federal	Aviation	Administration	

x Federal	Highway	Administration	

x Federal	Transit	Administration	

x National	Marine	Fisheries	Service	

x United	States	Army	Corps	of	Engineers	

x United	States	Coast	Guard	

x United	States	Environmental	Protection	Agency	(Washington	D.C.	and	Regional)	

x United	States	Fish	and	Wildlife	Service	
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Distribution List 8‐2 October 2014

   

State Elected Officials 

x Governor	Rick	Scott	

x Representative	Dave	Kerner		(District	87)	

x Senator	Jeff	Clemens		(District	27)	

x Senator	Maria	Sachs		(District	34)	

State Agencies 

x Florida	Department	of	Environmental	Protection		

x Florida	Department	of	Transportation		

x Florida	Division	of	Historical	Resources/State	Historic	Preservation	Officer		

x State	Environmental	Management	Office	

x State	of	Florida	Clearinghouse	

County Elected Officials and Departments 

x Broward	County

x Palm	Beach	County	

Local/Regional Agencies and Organizations 

x East	Central	Florida	Regional	Planning	Council	

x Palm	Beach	Metropolitan	Planning	Organization	

x South	Florida	Regional	Planning	Council	

x South	Florida	Water	Management	District	

x Treasure	Coast	Regional	Planning	Council	

Municipalities 

x City	of	Fort	Lauderdale		

x Palm	Beach	Gardens	

x City	of	West	Palm	Beach	
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Appendix A:  Agency Coordination    October 2014

   

Appendix A: Agency Coordination 

x A‐1:								SHPO	Consultation	Materials	

x A‐2:									USFWS	Consultation	Materials	



 

RICK SCOTT 

Governor 

KEN DETZNER 

Secretary of State 

Division of Historical Resources 

R.A. Gray Building • 500 South Bronough Street• Tallahassee, Florida 32399 

850.245.6300 • 850.245.6436 (Fax) flheritage.com 

Promoting Florida’s History and Culture VivaFlorida.org

David Valenstein August 25, 2014 

US Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Attn: John Winkle 

RE: DHR Project File No.: 2014-3758/Received by DHR: August 25, 2014 

 Project: All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project from Miami to West Palm Beach: Vehicle 

Maintenance Facility (VMF) Relocation 

 County: Palm Beach 

Dear Mr. Valenstein: 

This office reviewed the referenced project for possible effects on historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, 

on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The review was conducted in accordance with Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and its implementing regulations in 36 CFR Part 

800: Protection of Historic Properties. 

This proposed project involves the restoration of passenger rail service between Miami and West Palm Beach 

utilizing the existing Florida East Coast Rail (FECR) right-of-way (ROW). The current submission from your 

office is in reference to the new location for a VMF in support of the All Aboard Passenger Rail Project. The 

portion of the project that included the new VMF location was surveyed in 2013 (2013-4404). The Area of 

Potential Effect (APE) for the survey did not take into account this new activity at the VMF. According to our 

GIS records the Dunbar Village Public Housing Complex (8PB1328), an NRHP-eligible historic district is 

immediately adjacent to the proposed VMF facility and therefore, is vulnerable to impacts from the proposed 

VMF. Due to the close proximity of 8PB1328 to the proposed VMF, and the change in the proposed project at 

this location, this office requests that the effects of the proposed VMF on 8PB1328 be assessed. 

If you have any questions, please contact Ginny Jones, Transportation Compliance & Review Architectural 

Historian, by email ginny.jones@dos.myflorida.com, or by telephone at 850.245.6333 or 800.847.7278. 

Sincerely 

Robert F. Bendus, Director 

Division of Historical Resources 

& State Historic Preservation Officer


Palm Beach Lakes Blvd Palm Beach Lakes Blvd

Project # 6063-12-0212

All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project

\\vhb\proj\Orlando\61827.00 FRA NEPA Support\graphics\FIGURES\8x11portrait.indd

Existing Yard Buildings

FECR Stub Tracks 

to be removed

FECR Tracks

Explanation of Features

Proposed AAF Tracks

Fiber Optic Regen Building

Existing Fiber Optic Duct Bank

Proposed Safety Fence

Building Outline

Shop Canopy Outline

Existing FECR R/W

Limits of Asphalt Pavement

WPB Rail Yard Layout

450 Feet

3-1
Project # 6063-12-0212

All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project

\\vhb\proj\Orlando\61827.00 FRA NEPA Support\graphics\FIGURES\8x11portrait.indd

Existing Yard Buildings

FECR Stub Tracks 

to be removed

FECR Tracks

Explanation of Features

Proposed AAF Tracks

Fiber Optic Regen Building

Existing Fiber Optic Duct Bank

Proposed Safety Fence

Building Outline

Shop Canopy Outline

Existing FECR R/W

Limits of Asphalt Pavement

WPB Rail Yard Layout (south)

450 Feet

3-2



From: Wrublik, John [mailto:john_wrublik@fws.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 8:15 AM 

To: Winkle, John (FRA) 

Subject: All Aboard Florida Vehicle Maintenance Facility Relocation 

Dear. Mr. Winkle, 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has received the letter from the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) dated August 18, 2014, regarding the new proposed location for a Vehicle 

Maintenance Facility, north of 15th Street in West Palm Beach, Florida. The FRA has 

determined that the project will "not affect" Federally listed species. The Service notes that the 

project footprint is located in a highly urbanized area that does not contain habitat for Federally 

listed species. Therefore, the Service supports the FRA's determination. Thank you for your 

assistance in protecting Federally listed species. 

Sincerely,

John M. Wrublik

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1339 20th Street

Vero Beach, Florida 32960

(772) 469-4282
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Appendix A:  Agency Coordination    October 2014

   

This page intentionally left blank
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Appendix B:  Noise and Vibration Analysis    October 2014

   

Appendix B: Noise and Vibration Analysis 

x B‐1:	 All	Aboard	Florida	Proposed	West	Palm	Beach	Rail	Yard	Noise	and	Vibration	Assessment	

Modeling	Report	

x B‐2:	 All	Aboard	Florida	Proposed	West	Palm	Beach	Rail	Yard	Noise	and	Vibration	Assessment	

Monitoring	Report	
6063120212 Page 1 

MEMO 

To Lisa Standley, Ph.D. VHB 

Principal & FRA Representative 

File No. 6063120212 

From Lucien Tender, P.E. cc: Charlene Stroehlen, P.E. 

Sam Arden, E.I.T. 

Brian Cook

Frank Babic, P.E. INCE 

Tel 813-636-1529 

Fax 

Date September 11, 2014 

Subject: All Aboard Florida Proposed West Palm Beach Rail Yard 

Noise and Vibration Assessment Modeling Report

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

The objective of this supplemental analysis is to update the noise and vibration impact 

assessment for the West Palm Beach (WPB) Rail Yard performed previously as part of the 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA). Updates to the previous assessment include 

incorporation of noise and vibration monitoring results (Noise and Vibration Monitoring Report) 

to establish baseline conditions, as well as incorporation of additional noise sources that had not 

been included. The Project Area assessed in this report includes the WPB Rail Yard, as well as 

the mainline corridor between the yard and the proposed WPB Passenger Station to the south. 

This report provides 1) a comparison of modeled to observed noise levels at four monitoring 

locations around the WPB Rail Yard to validate the modeling approach, 2) an updated noise 

impact analysis of 21 noise-sensitive receptors located adjacent to the Project Area, 3) a review 

of observed vibration levels at two locations around the WPB Rail Yard to establish site-specific 

vibration sources and propagation conditions and 4) an updated vibration impact analysis. 

The results of the noise monitoring correlated well with the noise model once significant noise 

sources had been accounted for in the model. Minor differences between observed and 

modeled noise levels at each monitoring location were due to the limited representation of 

average WPB Rail Yard conditions obtained from just over 24 hours of monitoring. The noise 

assessment reported exceedances of the FTA impact criteria at several locations, mainly 

associated with the use of FRA-mandated train horn activation at nearby intersections on the 

mainline track. These impacts will be mitigated through implementation of way-side horns. 

The results of the vibration monitoring identified existing vibration levels associated with current 

freight use along the mainline currently exceed FTA impact criteria in several locations. The 

current vibration levels were calculated based upon the use of the revised model. The 

assessment of future passenger train operations was based on the FTA model. Under project 

conditions no exceedance of impact criteria is verified, as Project vibration levels are much less 

than those currently experienced due to existing freight traffic. 
All Aboard Florida Proposed West Palm Beach Rail Yard 

Noise and Vibration Assessment Modeling Report 

September, 2014 

6063120212 Page 2 

2.0 COMPARISON OF MODELED AND OBSERVED NOISE LEVELS 

Confirmatory noise monitoring was conducted from August 19, 2014 to August 21, 2014 at four 

locations representative of noise-sensitive receptors in proximity to the WPB Rail Yard. These 

locations were chosen to confirm the modeling approach and represent all the activities at the 

WPB Rail Yard. The proposed WPB Rail Yard layout is provided in Appendix 1, Figure 1. 

Three locations are on the west side of the WPB Rail Yard (North End, Middle Section and 

South end) and better represent the WPB Rail Yard activities. A fourth location to the East 

better captures the mainline train traffic (Figure 2). 

During monitoring, the following noise sources were observed, which have been included in the 

updated model: 

x Mainline Freight Traffic – Noise from through traffic that is generally traveling at speeds 

greater than 20 miles per hour (mph) with pass-by events lasting on the order of minutes 

(between 2-4 minutes is typical). 

x Yard Inbound/Outbound Traffic – Noise from trains utilizing the WPB Rail Yard that are 

generally traveling at speeds of around 5 mph in and around the WPB Rail Yard. WPB 

Rail Yard Inbound/Outbound traffic includes trains that access both the WPB Rail Yard 

siding tracks to the east of existing buildings and WPB Rail Yard intermodal tracks to the 

west of existing buildings. 

x Warning Horns - Near crossings (approximately 1⁄4 mile) warning horns were observed. 

x Idling – Idling trains at either intermodal or siding tracks that have just arrived or are 

preparing to depart. 

x Auxiliary Equipment, General – This includes general vehicular traffic and mechanical 

noise observed on the WPB Rail Yard. 

x Auxiliary Equipment, North Building – A point noise source was observed from the 

northernmost WPB Rail Yard building. 

x Division Avenue Traffic – Close to Division Ave, noise from automobile traffic was 

observed. 

x 15th Street Traffic – Close to 15th Street Traffic, noise from automobile traffic was 

observed. 

During monitoring, noise from special track work (crossovers and switches) and coupling was 

observed but at noise levels that were negligible in comparison to major noise sources such as 

freight traffic and WPB Rail Yard activity. There is no PA system on site and no wheel squeal 

was observed during the monitoring effort. 

Table 1 provides a summary of the observed noise sources at each location and how they 

supported or refuted initial modeling assumptions. Figures 2 and 3 depict the four noise 

monitoring locations in relation to the noise-sensitive receivers. 

 
All Aboard Florida Proposed West Palm Beach Rail Yard 

Noise and Vibration Supplemental Assessment Report 

September, 2014 

6063120212 Page 3 

Table 1: Summary of Modeled and Observed Noise Conditions 

Source Model Assumptions 

Modeling Scenario Conditions Within 

Monitoring Window 

Noise Monitoring 

Location 

Noise Monitoring 

Location 

NM1 NM2 NM3 NM4 NM1 NM2 NM3 NM4 

Mainline Freight 

Traffic 

5 trains/day, 5 trains/night, 42 

mph, 2 locos, 101 cars M M M M O O O O 

Yard 

Inbound/Outbound 

Traffic 

2 trains/day, 2 trains/night, 5 

mph, 2 locos, 12 cars M M M M Upd Upd Upd Upd 

Warning Horn

Sounded by each train 1/4 

mile from 23rd St. and 15th 

St. 

M M M M O O O O 

Idling Each of 4 trains that use yard 

for 30 minutes each M M N/O N/O O O 

Special Track 

work Includes crossovers/switches Neg Neg Neg Neg 

Wheel Squeal Possible on tight curves N/O N/O N/O N/O 

Coupling From possible train building Neg Neg N/O N/O 

PA System Loudspeaker on yard 

property N/O N/O N/O N/O 

Auxiliary 

Equipment 

General machine equipment, 

observed throughout the day Upd Upd Upd Upd 

Yard Vehicle 

Traffic 

General traffic including 

loading, unloading, etc. Upd Upd Upd Upd 

Division Ave. and 

15th St Vehicle 

Traffic 

100 cars/hour day, 25 

cars/hour night, 25 mph N/O Upd Upd N/O 

Definitions: 

M – Noise source modeled 

O – Noise source observed similar to modeled 

Upd – Noise source observed but requires update to be consistent with typical operations and input assumptions 

Neg – Noise source observed but negligible in relation to other sources 

N/O – Noise source not observed 

Based on the observations of significant noise sources during noise monitoring, the model was 

updated to include additional noise sources such as train activity on the intermodal track, 

auxiliary equipment at the WPB Rail Yard, and vehicular traffic on Division Avenue and 15th

Avenue East. A description of the individual noise sources considered, as well as their distance 

from each noise monitoring location, is provided in Table 2. 

 
All Aboard Florida Proposed West Palm Beach Rail Yard 

Noise and Vibration Supplemental Assessment Report 

September, 2014 

6063120212 Page 4 

Table 2: Noise Source Distance to Receptors for Existing Freight and Yard Operations 

Source Description NM1 NM2 NM3 NM4 

Fixed-Guideway Sources Distance (ft) 

Mainline Away 

from Yard 

7 trains/day, 7 trains/night, throttle @ 8, 

speed 42 mph, 2 locos, 101 cars na na na na 

Mainline Away 

from Yard - WH 

7 trains/day, 7 trains/night, throttle @ 8, 

speed 42 mph, 2 locos, 101 cars, warning 

horn 

na na na na 

Mainline Near 

Yard - WH 

5 trains/day, 5 trains/night, throttle @ 8, 

speed 42 mph, 2 locos, 101 cars, warning 

horn 

230 665 145 70 

North Siding -

WH

1 train/day, 1 train/night, throttle @ 1, 

speed 5 mph, 1 loco, 12 cars, warning 

horn 

185 na na na 

Intermodal Track 1 train/day, 1 train/night, throttle @ 1, 

speed 5 mph, 1 loco, 12 cars 80 305 115 425 

South Siding -

WH

1 train/day, 1 train/night, throttle @ 1, 

speed 5 mph, 1 loco, 12 cars, warning 

horn 

na 620 125 110 

Highway/Transit Sources Distance (ft) 

Division Ave. 

Automobiles 

60 cars/hour day, 25 cars/hour night, 25 

mph na 10 30 na 

Stationary Sources Distance (ft) 

Idling - Siding 1 train/day, 1 train/night, 30 minutes of 

idling per train 185 620 450 110 

Idling - 

Intermodal Track 

1 train/day, 1 train/night, 30 minutes of 

idling per train 80 305 250 425 

Auxiliary 

Equipment 

45 minutes of activity each hour from 7a10p, 45 minutes of activity total 10p-7a 200 160 300 220 

Auxiliary 

Equipment –

North Building 

45 minutes of activity each hour from 7a10p, 45 minutes of activity total 10p-7a 175 na na na 

Notes: 

na: source not applicable to noise monitoring location 

Decay coefficient for fixed-guideway sources = 15 

Decay coefficient for stationary sources = 25 

Next, field monitoring results were adjusted to better represent long-term/typical activities in the 

vicinity of the Project Area. Although noise monitoring accurately establishes noise levels at 

particular receptors as a function of individual noise sources, it is difficult to capture long-term 

noise level averages in 24-48 hours of monitoring. Current train operations on the FECR 

corridor are not consistent, and the measurements used for the modeling effort were adjusted to 

be consistent with railroad operations. This allowed for a confirmatory comparison of modeled 

and adjusted observed Leq(h) and Ldn values at each noise monitoring location, which are 

provided in Table 3. These results show that the model provides accurate estimates of sound 

level conditions and can be used for modeling of project noise conditions. 
All Aboard Florida Proposed West Palm Beach Rail Yard 

Noise and Vibration Supplemental Assessment Report 

September, 2014 

6063120212 Page 5 

Table 3: Comparison of Modeled to Observed Noise Levels 

Noise 

Monitoring 

Location 

Modeled Observed Modeled - Observed 

Leq(d) Leq(n) Ldn Leq(d) Leq(n) Ldn Leq(d) Leq(n) Ldn

NM1 66 65 72 69 62 71 -3 3 1 

NM2 63 60 67 64 59 67 -1 1 0 

NM3 65 67 73 65 67 73 0 0 0 

NM4 69 71 77 67 68 74 2 3 3 

3.0 UPDATE TO NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Using the updated and validated noise model, a noise impact analysis was performed for 

Category 2 and Category 3 noise-sensitive land uses within the vicinity of the Project Area (no 

Category 1 land uses were identified). The impact analysis for Category 2 land uses was 

performed by identifying a representative parcel, or receptor, in each of the 17 clusters identified 

in Figures 2 and 3 and modeling existing and proposed noise levels in terms of Ldn. For clusters 

16 and 17, the additional noise created by the proposed intermodal track alignment (Figure 1) 

was taken into account as well. However, based on the absence of wheel squeal in audio 

recordings of freight operations along the curves of existing intermodal tracks during the 

monitoring effort and that the proposed intermodal tracks have curve radii (approximately 400-

feet) equal to or greater than curve radii of the existing intermodal tracks (approximately 400-

feet), wheel squeal associated with existing or proposed operations along intermodal tracks was 

not included in the modeling. For Category 3 land uses, four churches were identified and are 

identified in Figures 2 and 3. Existing and proposed noise levels were modeled at each church 

in terms of Leq(h). 

Proposed noise levels were modeled using the same approach as existing, with different model 

inputs. Table 4 gives a list and description of the individual noise sources anticipated as part of 

the proposed project. 

Table 4: Noise Source Inputs to Proposed Passenger Operations 

Source Description 

Fixed-Guideway Sources 

Mainline Away 

From Yard 

12 trains/day, 4 trains/night, throttle < 6, speed 20 

mph, 2 locos, 8 cars 

Mainline Away 

From Yard - WH 

12 trains/day, 4 trains/night, throttle < 6, speed 20 

mph, 2 locos, 8 cars, warning horn 

Yard I/O - South 12 trains/day, 4 trains/night, throttle < 6, speed 5 

mph, 2 locos, 8 cars, warning horn 

Stationary Sources 

Idling 8 trains/day, 4 trains/night, 30 minutes of idling per 

train 

To determine the noise level at each noise-sensitive receptor, the distance from each receptor 

to each individual noise source was determined in order to calculate the cumulative existing and 
All Aboard Florida Proposed West Palm Beach Rail Yard 

Noise and Vibration Supplemental Assessment Report 

September, 2014 

6063120212 Page 6 

cumulative proposed noise exposure at each receptor. For residential clusters, a representative 

parcel (as indicated in Figures 2 and 3) was selected and the distance was calculated from the 

noise source to the nearest edge of the structure using aerial imagery. For category 3 receptors, 

the nearest edge of the church was used. Table 5 provides existing noise sources, proposed 

noise sources, and distances. A distance coefficient of 15 was used for the linear noise decay 

equation, while 25 was used for stationary noise decay equation following the Create Rail Noise 

Model (HMMH, 2006). 
All Aboard Florida Proposed West Palm Beach Rail Yard 

Noise and Vibration Assessment Modeling Report 

September, 2014 

6063120212 Page 7 

Table 5: Summary of Noise Sources and Residential Cluster Distances 

Existing 

Cluster 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 

Fixed-Guideway Sources Distance (ft) 

Mainline Away from Yard -- -- -- -- 300 215 190 70 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Mainline Away from Yard - WH -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 70 70 315 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Mainline Near Yard - WH 70 60 220 295 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 190 290 735 715 370 235 

North Siding - WH 115 105 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 670 325 190 

Intermodal Track 300 420 260 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 150 255 385 350 150 100 

South Siding - WH -- -- 235 315 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 150 275 690 -- -- -- 

Highway/Transit Sources Distance (ft)

Automobile -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 20 20 -- -- 

Stationary Sources Distance (ft)

Idling - Siding 115 105 300 450 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 500 400 690 670 325 190 

Idling - Intermodal Track 300 420 300 500 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 375 300 385 350 150 100 

Auxiliary Equipment - General 245 210 440 600 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 375 290 230 200 115 265 

Auxiliary Equipment – North Side 175 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 265 240 

Proposed 

Cluster 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 

Fixed-Guideway Sources Distance (ft)

Mainline Away from Yard -- -- -- -- 300 215 190 70 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Mainline Away from Yard - WH -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 70 70 315 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Yard I/O - South 265 250 260 315 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 130 275 490 470 -- -- 

Stationary Sources Distance (ft)

Idling 265 250 500 700 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 500 400 490 470 200 290 

Notes: 

“--“indicates source not likely at cluster 

Decay coefficient for fixed-guideway sources = 15 

Decay coefficient for stationary sources = 25
All Aboard Florida Proposed West Palm Beach Rail Yard 

Noise and Vibration Supplemental Assessment Report 

September, 2014 

6063120212 Page 8 

Table 6: Summary of Noise Sources and Church Parcels 

Existing 

Church 

1 2 3 4 

Fixed-Guideway Sources Distance (ft) 

Mainline Away from Yard -- -- -- -- 

Mainline Away from Yard - WH -- -- 215 -- 

Mainline Near Yard - WH 165 200 -- 300 

North Siding - WH 210 245 -- -- 

Intermodal Track 400 560 -- -- 

South Siding - WH -- -- -- 300 

Highway/Transit Sources Distance (ft) 

Automobile -- -- -- -- 

Stationary Sources Distance (ft) 

Idling - Siding 210 245 -- -- 

Idling - Intermodal Track 400 560 -- -- 

Auxiliary Equipment - General 335 385 -- -- 

Auxiliary Equipment – North Side 165 -- -- -- 

Proposed 

Church 

1 2 3 4 

Fixed-Guideway Sources Distance (ft) 

Mainline -- -- -- -- 

Crossing -- -- 215 -- 

Yard I/O - South 350 390 -- 275 

Stationary Sources Distance (ft) 

Idling 350 390 -- -- 

Notes: 

“--“indicates source not likely at cluster 

Decay coefficient for fixed-guideway sources = 15 

Decay coefficient for stationary sources = 25 

Finally, a comparison of project to existing noise exposure was made at each cluster or 

receptor. Results of the comparison, along with a designation of impact, are provided in Table 7. 

For all receptors except clusters 16 and 17, impact was determined based on a direct 

comparison of project to existing noise. However, because the project is proposing to move a 

section of the intermodal track at the north of the yard closer to the residential parcels adjacent 

to the yard, the impact determination was made by comparing the cumulative noise exposure 

increase from the project (project noise + existing noise sources utilizing proposed track layout) 

to the existing noise (utilizing current track layout) using the relationship illustrated in Figure 3-2 

of the FTA Manual. 

Table 7 presents noise impacts that exist before accounting for the mitigation measures 

stipulated in the AAF EA’s FONSI (i.e., use of stationary wayside warning horns rather than the 

warning horns on the locomotives where unmitigated impacts exist as a result of the Project). 
All Aboard Florida Proposed West Palm Beach Rail Yard 

Noise and Vibration Supplemental Assessment Report 

September, 2014 

6063120212 Page 9 

Table 7: Results of Noise Impact Analysis Before Mitigation 

Cluster/ 

Receptor 

Existin

g Noise 

Level 

Project 

Noise 

Level 

Impact 

Criteria Impact 

Category 

Total 

Noise 

Level 

Noise 

Level 

Increase 

# of Impacts 

Mod Sev Mod Sev 

Category 2 Landuses – Noise Exposure in Ldn

Cluster 1 77 68 65 75 Moderate 78 1 2 0

Cluster 2 78 69 65 75 Moderate 79 1 4 0

Cluster 3 70 68 64 70 Moderate 72 2 4 0

Cluster 4 68 67 63 68 Moderate 71 3 2 0

Cluster 5 62 55 59 64 No Impact 63 1 0 0

Cluster 6 64 57 60 66 No Impact 65 1 0 0

Cluster 7 65 58 61 66 No Impact 66 1 0 0

Cluster 8 67 60 62 67 No Impact 68 1 0 0

Cluster 9 78 76 65 75 Severe 80 2 0 2

Cluster 10 78 76 65 75 Severe 80 2 0 3

Cluster 11 68 66 63 68 Moderate 70 2 2 0

Cluster 12 71 73 65 71 Severe 75 4 0 3

Cluster 13 68 64 63 68 Moderate 69 1 3 0

Cluster 14 64 64 60 66 Moderate 67 3 6 0

Cluster 15 65 64 61 66 Moderate 68 3 6 0

Cluster 161 68 58 -- -- Moderate 71 3 3 0

Cluster 171 71 54 -- -- Moderate 72 1 2 0

Category 3 Landuses – Noise Exposure in Leq(day) 

Church 1 65 58 66 71 No Impact 66 1 0 0 

Church 2 58 57 62 67 No Impact 60 2 0 0 

Church 3 63 64 64 70 No Impact 67 4 0 0 

Church 4 55 59 60 66 No Impact 61 6 0 0 1

Impact determination made based on comparison of cumulative noise exposure increase to existing noise, Figure 3-

2 of FTA Manual. Cumulative noise exposure (“Total Noise Level”) calculated as the sum of Project Noise Level and 

a revised Existing Noise Level that takes into account the realignment of the Intermodal Track. Revised Existing 

Noise Level not shown in Table. 

Operational noise impacts projected from the Project Area would result from continuation of 

ongoing freight operations, project-related noise, and existing background noise, but increases 

in noise levels would primarily result from the use of warning horns at grade crossings. 

Accordingly, a design – consistent with the AAF EA FONSI – was analyzed that assumed the 

use of locomotive warning horns would be replaced with stationary wayside horns where 

unmitigated noise impacts exist as a result of the Project. Results of the impact analysis under 

mitigated conditions are provided in Table 8. 
All Aboard Florida Proposed West Palm Beach Rail Yard 

Noise and Vibration Supplemental Assessment Report 

September, 2014 

6063120212 Page 10 

Table 8: Results of Noise Impact Analysis After Mitigation 

Cluster/ 

Receptor 

Existin

g Noise 

Level 

Project 

Noise 

Level 

Impact 

Criteria Impact 

Category 

Total 

Noise 

Level 

Noise 

Level 

Increase 

# of Impacts 

Mod Sev Mod Sev 

Category 2 Landuses – Noise Exposure in Ldn

Cluster 1 77 63 65 75 No Impact 78 1 0 0 

Cluster 2 78 63 65 75 No Impact 78 0 0 0 

Cluster 3 70 62 64 70 No Impact 71 1 0 0 

Cluster 4 68 61 63 68 No Impact 69 1 0 0 

Cluster 5 62 55 59 64 No Impact 63 1 0 0 

Cluster 6 64 57 60 66 No Impact 65 1 0 0 

Cluster 7 65 58 61 66 No Impact 66 1 0 0 

Cluster 8 67 60 62 67 No Impact 68 1 0 0 

Cluster 9 78 65 65 75 No Impact 78 0 0 0 

Cluster 10 78 65 65 75 No Impact 78 0 0 0 

Cluster 11 68 55 63 68 No Impact 69 1 0 0 

Cluster 12 71 67 65 71 Moderate 73 2 3 0 

Cluster 13 68 58 63 68 No Impact 68 0 0 0 

Cluster 14 64 58 60 66 No Impact 65 1 0 0 

Cluster 15 65 59 61 66 No Impact 66 1 0 0 

Cluster 161 68 58 -- -- Moderate 71 3 3 0 

Cluster 171 71 54 -- -- Moderate 72 1 2 0 

Category 3 Landuses – Noise Exposure in Leq(day) 

Church 1 65 52 66 71 No Impact 65 0 0 0 

Church 2 58 51 62 67 No Impact 59 1 0 0 

Church 3 63 53 64 70 No Impact 63 0 0 0 

Church 4 55 53 60 66 No Impact 57 2 0 0 1

Impact determination made based on comparison of cumulative noise exposure increase to existing noise, Figure 3-

2 of FTA Manual. Cumulative noise exposure (“Total Noise Level”) calculated as the sum of Project Noise Level and 

a revised Existing Noise Level that takes into account the realignment of the Intermodal Track. Revised Existing 

Noise Level not shown in Table. 

Incorporation of the mitigation measures outlined in the AAF EA FONSI (i.e., use of stationary 

wayside warning horns rather than the warning horns on the locomotives), would result in 

Moderate Impact to 8 category 2 parcels. 

4.0 OBSERVED VIBRATION LEVELS 

Vibration monitoring was conducted from August 20, 2014 to August 22, 2014 at two locations 

located to the east and southwest of the Yard (see Figures 2 and 3) in order to support the 

modeling approach for vibration conditions. At each monitoring location, four sensors were 

placed at increasing distances from the corridor. Table 9 provides a summary of the vibration 

levels observed at each location. 
All Aboard Florida Proposed West Palm Beach Rail Yard 

Noise and Vibration Supplemental Assessment Report 

September, 2014 

6063120212 Page 11 

Table 9: Summary of Observed Vibration Conditions 

Monitoring 

Location 

Distance to 

Source (ft) 

Background 

VdB (re 1E-6 

in/s) 

Train Passby 

VdB (re 1E-6 

in/s) 

VM1 

(on soil(1), 22 mph) 

25 34.5 78.6 

60 41.1 75.7 

80 56.2 72.5 

120(2) 49.1 74.2 

Monitoring 

Location 

Distance to 

Source (ft) 

Background 

VdB (re 1E-6 

in/s) 

Train Passby 

VdB (re 1E-6 

in/s) 

VM2 

(concrete slab on 

grade(3), 33 mph) 

60 70.8 88.1 

80 58.6 84.8 

120 64.6 76.9 

160 70.6 74.0 

(1) Sensors were installed on soil by means of a steel stake in the ground 

(2) Sensor was installed on concrete sidewalk 

(3) Sensors were installed on concrete sidewalk (slab on grade) 

5.0 UPDATE TO VIBRATION IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Based on the monitoring results discussed in Section 3.0, updates to the vibration impact 

analysis were performed by making appropriate adjustments to the measured vibration levels. 

First, a vibration curve was established for the vibration levels observed at location VM2. To be 

conservative, this curve was used as the basis for future vibration calculations as location VM2 

represents the most efficient coupling of the sensors to the soil - through concrete slab at grade. 

Figure 4 shows the curve that was established, as well as the second degree polynomial 

equation that was fitted to the curve in order to calculate vibration levels at intermediate 

distances. For distances greater than 160 ft, it was assumed that baseline vibration level was 74 

VdB (re 1E-6 in/s). 

 
All Aboard Florida Proposed West Palm Beach Rail Yard 

Noise and Vibration Supplemental Assessment Report 

September, 2014 

6063120212 Page 12 

Figure 4: Vibration Curve 

Using the baseline curve above, referenced to 33 mph, the residential and recreational 

receptors identified for noise were used to calculate vibration levels at vibration-sensitive 

receptors. For each receptor, the most significant vibration source was considered. There were 

no Category 1 land uses or Special Buildings identified in the vicinity of the Project Area. 

Currently 14 freight pass-by events (10 mainline and 4 Yard in/out) regularly occur along the 

project area, and 16 additional events (passenger) are proposed. Therefore, current conditions 

were assessed using Infrequent Events criteria and proposed conditions were assessed using 

Occasional Events criteria to gage impact at each Cluster or receptor. 

Using the vibration curve given in Figure 4, additional adjustments were made to account for 

differences in operating speed. The results of the impact analysis for the current operations are 

given in Tables 10, along with applicable impact criteria. Vibration levels related to current 

freight operations are given in bold italics if they exceed the Infrequent Events criteria1

. 

 

1 Infrequent Events" is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day (Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. USDOT Report Number FTA-VA-90-1003-06, 

May 2006, section 8.1.1)

y = 0.001x2 - 0.3577x + 106.52 

R2 = 0.9922 

70 

72 

74 

76 

78 

80 

82 

84 

86 

88 

90 

50 70 90 110 130 150 170 

VdB (re 1E-6 in/s) 

Distance from Source (ft) 

VM2 (concrete slab on 

grade, 33 mph) 
All Aboard Florida Proposed West Palm Beach Rail Yard 

Noise and Vibration Supplemental Assessment Report 

September, 2014 

6063120212 Page 13 

Table 10. Existing Vibration Levels at Sensitive Receptors 

Cluster/ 

Church 

Existing Vibration Impact Assessment 

Source Speed 

(mph) 

Distance 

(ft)1

Infrequent 

Criteria 

Occasional 

Criteria 

Frequent 

Criteria 

Vibration 

Level 

VdB (re 1E-6 in/s) 

1 Mainline 42 70 80 75 72 88 

2 Mainline 42 60 80 75 72 91 

3 Mainline 42 220 80 75 72 77 

4 Mainline 42 295 80 75 72 77 

5 Mainline 42 300 80 75 72 77 

6 Mainline 42 215 80 75 72 77 

7 Mainline 42 190 80 75 72 77 

8 Mainline 42 70 80 75 72 88 

9 Mainline 42 70 80 75 72 88 

10 Mainline 42 70 80 75 72 88 

11 Mainline 42 315 80 75 72 77 

12 Mainline 42 190 80 75 72 77 

13 Mainline 42 290 80 75 72 77 

14 Intermodal 5 385 80 75 72 58 

15 Intermodal 5 350 80 75 72 58 

16 Intermodal 5 150 80 75 72 59 

17 Intermodal 5 100 80 75 72 64 

Church 1 Mainline 42 165 83 78 75 77 

Church 2 Mainline 42 200 83 78 75 77 

Church 3 Mainline 42 215 83 78 75 77 

Church 4 Mainline 42 300 83 78 75 77 1

For distances outside the range of the baseline curve (> 160 ft) a value of 74 VdB was assumed 

For future operations, the FTA model described for ground-borne vibrations was used. The 

results on Table 11 represent the assessment for the future operations (passenger trains). The 

main assumptions used for modeling purposes are speed correction, correction due to jointed 

track, and coupling to wood frame construction houses. Based on the results given in Table 11 

no parcels experience additional vibration events that exceed the Occasional Events criteria2

. 

 

2 “Occasional Events” is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day (Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. USDOT Report Number FTA-VA-90-1003-06, 

May 2006, section 8.1.1)
All Aboard Florida Proposed West Palm Beach Rail Yard 

Noise and Vibration Supplemental Assessment Report 

September, 2014 

6063120212 Page 14 

Table 11. Proposed Vibration Levels at Sensitive Receptors 

Cluster/ 

Church 

Project Vibration Impact Assessment 

Source2 Speed 

(mph) 

Distance 

(ft)1

Infrequent 

Criteria 

Occasional 

Criteria 

Frequent 

Criteria 

Vibration 

Level 

VdB (re 1E-6 in/s) 

1 Mainline 5 70 80 75 72 63 

2 Mainline 5 60 80 75 72 64 

3 Mainline 5 220 80 75 72 50 

4 Mainline 20 295 80 75 72 63 

5 Mainline 20 300 80 75 72 63 

6 Mainline 20 215 80 75 72 62 

7 Mainline 20 190 80 75 72 63 

8 Mainline 20 70 80 75 72 75 

9 Mainline 20 70 80 75 72 75 

10 Mainline 20 70 80 75 72 75 

11 Mainline 20 315 80 75 72 64 

12 Mainline 20 190 80 75 72 63 

13 Mainline 20 290 80 75 72 63 

14 Yard 5 385 80 75 72 58 

15 Yard 5 350 80 75 72 54 

16 Intermodal 5 55 80 75 72 73 

17 Intermodal 5 55 80 75 72 73 

Church 1 Mainline 20 165 83 78 75 65 

Church 2 Mainline 20 200 83 78 75 63 

Church 3 Mainline 20 215 83 78 75 62 

Church 4 Mainline 20 300 83 78 75 63 1

For distances outside the range of the baseline curve (> 160 ft) a baseline value of 74 VdB was assumed 

2

For Clusters 16 and 17, the source is assumed to be the revised intermodal track servicing freight traffic, 4-trains per 

day, thus “Infrequent Criteria” is appropriate. A +8 VdB adjustment was made due to primary stiff suspension usually 

considered for freight trains 

6.0 CONCLUSIONS 

A supplemental noise and vibration assessment was performed for the proposed AAF WPB 

Yard and the existing mainline track between the Yard and the proposed WPB Passenger 

Station to the south. Results of the noise assessment conducted reported several exceedances 

of the FTA impact criteria, primarily due to passenger trains using warning horns near at-grade 

crossings. However, these impacts can be mitigated through the use of stationary wayside 

warning horns, as described in the AAF EA FONSI. 

The vibration assessment conducted reported impacts due to existing freight activities above 

infrequent event criteria at several locations along the mainline. However, no vibration impacts 

associated with proposed passenger train activities were identified above the Occasional Events 

criteria due to mainline or the WPB Rail Yard activities. 
All Aboard Florida Proposed West Palm Beach Rail Yard 

Noise and Vibration Supplemental Assessment Report 

September, 2014 

6063120212 Page 15 

Yours truly, 

AMEC Environment & Infrastructure 

a Division of AMEC Americas Limited 

Report Prepared by: 

Brian Cook, P.E. 

Senior Planner - Environmental 

Data Prepared by: 

Sam Arden, E.I.T 

Technical Professional II - Engineer 

Reviewed and Updated by:

Alfredo Rodrigues

Senior Acoustic Specialist 

7.0 REFERENCES 

1. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. USDOT 

Report Number FTA-VA-90-1003-06, May 2006. 

2. HMMH, 2006. Noise Model Based on Federal Transit Administration General Transit Noise 

Assessment. https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L03727 
6063120212 

Appendix A 

Figures 

Figure 1. Conceptual Yard Layout 

Figure 2. Noise and Vibration Monitoring Locations and Clusters 

Figure 3. Cluster Locations and Sensitive Receptors
Figure 1
VM2

VM1

NM4

NM3

NM2

NM1 Cluster 1

Cluster 9

Cluster 4

Cluster 3

Cluster 2

Cluster 17

Cluster 16

Cluster 15

Cluster 14

Cluster 13

Cluster 12

Cluster 11

Cluster 10

Church 2

Church 4

Church 1

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics,

CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,

swisstopo, and the GIS User Community, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia,

© OpenStreetMap contributors

Monitoring and Cluster Locations

Figure

Path: H:\AllAboardFlorida\Task1\MXD\WPB Yard - Monitoring and Cluster Locations.mxd

Project # 6063-12-0212

All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project

0 450 Feet

Data Sources: ESRI 2012, FRA 2012, FGDL 2012, AMEC 2014.

Corridor Centerline

Explanation of Features

Existing FECR R/W

Noise Monitoring Location Existing Yard Building

A

Vibration Monitoring Location

Category 2 Receptors – Clusters

Category 2 Parcel

Church

Category 2 Representative Receptor

Category 3 Receptors – Churches


Church 3

Cluster 9

Cluster 7

Cluster 6

Cluster 5

Cluster 8

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics,

CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,

swisstopo, and the GIS User Community, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia,

© OpenStreetMap contributors

Monitoring and Cluster Locations

Figure

Path: H:\AllAboardFlorida\Task1\MXD\WPB Yard - Monitoring and Cluster Locations.mxd

Project # 6063-12-0212

All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project

0 450 Feet

Data Sources: ESRI 2012, FRA 2012, FGDL 2012, AMEC 2014.

Corridor Centerline

Explanation of Features

Existing FECR R/W

Noise Monitoring Location Existing Yard Building

B

Vibration Monitoring Location

Category 2 Receptors – Clusters

Category 2 Parcel

Church

Category 2 Representative Receptor

Category 3 Receptors – Churches 
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure 

a Division of AMEC Americas Limited 

160 Traders Blvd Suite 110 

Mississauga, Ontario L4Z 3K7 CANADA 

Tel 905-568-2929 

www.amec.com

MEMO 

To Lisa Standley, Ph.D. VHB 

Principal & FRA Representative 

File No. 6063120212

From Frank Babic / Mohammed Salim cc: Lucien Tender 

Charlene Stroehlen 

Sam Arden 

Brian Cook 

Alfredo Rodrigues 

Tel 905-568-2929 x 4212 

Fax 905-568-1686

Date September 10, 2013 

 

Subject: All Aboard Florida Proposed West Palm Beach Rail Yard 

Noise and Vibration Monitoring Report 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

The West Palm Beach (WPB) Rail Yard is an approximately 27-acre site located in WPB, 

Florida (Appendix A, Figure 1). This report presents the data collected during a monitoring 

effort to characterize the existing ambient noise and vibration levels in the vicinity of the WPB 

Rail Yard. The data collected, as well as, the assessment of the sources captured, will support a 

confirmatory review of the modeling effort. It also provides additional information for support of 

the modeling effort. 

A separate supplemental noise and vibration assessment modeling report will identify the 

current noise and vibration levels of existing freight operations near adjacent properties 

surrounding the operational WPB Yard, and will evaluate potential changes within the adjacent 

residential communities resulting from proposed operations at the Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

(VMF) and changes to the intermodal freight track layout. 

This baseline report has been prepared to support the supplemental noise and vibration 

assessment modeling by providing noise and vibration monitoring data of the existing WPB Rail 

Yard.

2.0 PURPOSE OF THE MONITORING PROGRAM 

AMEC completed a noise and vibration monitoring effort between August 19th and 22nd, 2014. 

The monitoring objective is confirmatory in nature to further define the existing noise and 

vibration environment, for use in conjunction with the predicted modeling. Data was collected in 

locations representative of noise-sensitive receptors close to the WPB Rail Yard, as per the 

approved test plan. This baseline memorandum summarizing the results of the monitoring has 

been prepared for reference in the supplemental technical noise and vibration report. 
All Aboard Florida Proposed West Palm Beach Rail Yard 

Noise and Vibration Monitoring Report 

September 10, 2014 

6063120212 Page 2 

3.0 MONITORING 

A total of four (4) noise monitoring locations and two (2) vibration monitoring locations were 

selected based on the proposed layout of the WPB Rail Yard and adjacent sensitive receptors. 

Figure 2 illustrates the noise monitoring locations (NM1 to NM4) and vibration monitoring 

locations (VM1 and VM2).

In addition, AMEC completed a windshield survey (i.e., review of noise sensitive receptors) 

around the Yard. The survey included a general review of the area and a focused effort on the 

first row of buildings adjacent to the Yard. AMEC confirmed that the sensitive receptors are 

mainly residential buildings. There were no hospitals identified in the area. There are four places 

of worship located at approximately 165 ft, 200 ft, 215 ft, and 300 ft from the centerline of the 

mainline, with the closest one being located east of the Yard on Cheerful Street. Two schools 

are located in the vicinity of the Yard and are approximately 960 ft and 975 ft, to the east and 

west of the Yard, respectively (Figure 3).

3.1 Noise Monitoring 

The four noise monitoring locations selected are representative of noise-sensitive receptors in 

proximity of the Yard. These locations were chosen to confirm the modeling approach and 

represent all the activities occurring at the Yard. Three locations (NM1 through NM3) are on the 

west side of the Yard (North End, Middle Section and South End) and better represent the Yard 

activities. A fourth noise monitoring location (NM4), located on the east side of the mainline 

tracks, better captures the mainline train activities. 

Microphones for sound level measurements were set to a height of 6 ft (for NM1 through NM3) 

and 12 ft (for NM4) off the ground. The height of NM4 was set higher to get a direct line-of-sight 

to the train pass-bys. Noise events were recorded during the day and night, and night-time 

measurements were unattended. Noise meters were equipped with audio recording capabilities 

that facilitate determining the number of train pass-bys and other related noise events (i.e., train 

horns, locomotive idling, train building/coupling noise, yard vehicle activity) during the noise 

monitoring period. Noise meters were set to record noise events when sound levels increased 

by 5 dB over the background sound levels. 

3.2 Vibration Monitoring 

Attended vibration measurements were conducted at two locations (VM1 and VM2) noted in 

Figure 2. Train movements at VM1 and VM2 were observed during the daytime and recorded to 

capture vibration events. Vibration transducers were installed at four setback distances from the 

track. This provides vibration conditions at varying distances from the vibration source and 

allows for characterization of representative receptors at varied setback distances. Vibration 

transducers were installed at the following locations and setbacks: 

Vibration Monitoring Location VM1: VM1 is located along the west side of the mainline 

tracks, south of the Yard and in the vicinity of Henrietta Avenue (between 14th Street and & 15th

Street). The transducers were installed at the following setbacks: 
All Aboard Florida Proposed West Palm Beach Rail Yard 

Noise and Vibration Monitoring Report 

September 10, 2014 

6063120212 Page 3 

x As close to right-of-way (ROW) wall as possible (approximately 25 ft from second track 

(2 of 4) centerline); 

x 60 feet from second track centerline; 

x 80 feet from second track centerline; and 

x 120 feet from second track centerline. 

The accelerometers for VM1 were installed on soil via a mechanical coupler, except at 120 ft. 

where the accelerometer was installed on the concrete sidewalk. 

Vibration Monitoring Location VM2: VM2 is located adjacent to the Yard, east of the mainline 

tracks and along 18th Street. The transducers were installed at the following setbacks: 

x As close to right-of-way (ROW) wall as possible (approximately 60 ft from fourth track (4 

of 4) centerline); 

x 80 ft from fourth track centerline; 

x 120 ft from fourth track centerline; and 

x 160 ft from fourth track centerline. 

The accelerometers for VM2 where installed on the concrete sidewalk (concrete slab on grade). 

Approximate train speeds were calculated utilizing the duration of the pass-bys and the number 

of cars (train length). The train type and number of cars were also documented for each event. 

4.0 INSTRUMENTATION 

The following noise and vibration monitoring instrumentation was utilized during the August 19th

through 22nd, 2014 field event. 

Noise Monitor: Larson Davis model 831 Integrating Sound Level Meter (SLM) equipped with 

measurement gear including wind screens and bird spikes. The Model 831 uses a Larson Davis 

Model PRM831 preamplifier and a PCB precision air-condenser microphone, which have been 

factory calibrated with the SLM unit. The SLM meets ANSI-S1.4-1985(R2001) Type 1 

requirements. The SLM calibration was certified within the previous twelve (12) months, and 

was field calibrated with a Larson-Davis Model CA200 precision acoustic calibrator before and 

after the measurement. 

Vibration Monitor: A 4-channel Crystal Instruments CoCo-80 Dynamic Signal Analyzer was 

used to measure vertical vibration levels at various setback distances from the railway line. Four 

PCB make accelerometers (model 393B04) were used for the vibration measurements. The unit 

measured root mean square (RMS) vibration during train pass-by events. Frequency range 2 

hertz (Hz)-200 Hz and minimum sensitivity range from 0.0001 inch/second. 

Equipment calibration certificates are provided in Appendix B.
All Aboard Florida Proposed West Palm Beach Rail Yard 

Noise and Vibration Monitoring Report 

September 10, 2014 

6063120212 Page 4 

5.0 NOISE MONITORING DATA 

5.1 Noise Metrics 

The noise data metrics recorded and documented at each of the noise monitoring locations are 

Leq in overall A-weighted decibel (dBA) noise levels. All data was recorded in one-second 

intervals. Audio recordings were collected when measured sound level data exceed a set noise 

threshold of L90 + 5 dB (L90 is the sound levels exceeded 90% of the time during the period). 

Recorded audio data precedes the triggered event by several seconds and last for several 

second following the event. Audio recordings were used to identify potential noise sources in the 

monitoring data, (e.g., vehicle pass-by, people talking, dog barking, emergency vehicle sirens, 

airplane over-flights, etc.). 

6.0 METEOROLOGICAL DATA 

Varying meteorological conditions such as high wind and precipitation may influence noise and 

vibration monitoring results. Therefore, meteorological data collected from the nearest 

environmental weather station, located approximately 2 miles southeast of the Yard on Seaview 

Avenue, was reviewed. Hourly weather data for the monitoring period is provided in 

Appendix C. This data includes wind speed, wind direction and precipitation. Vibration 

monitoring weather conditions were favorable for the measurements. 

7.0 MONITORING ERRORS 

Data from the noise was downloaded and reviewed for completeness. In the case of incomplete 

data, the nature of the issue (power outage or damage) is investigated. Power failure was noted 

for noise monitor NM1. However, this occurred after approximately 31 hours of recording and 

did not adversely affect overall data collection. The remaining noise monitors (NM2, NM3 and 

NM4) recorded data for approximately 48 hours. 

8.0 DISCUSSION AND RESULTS 

8.1 Noise Model Sources 

For the purpose of preparing the baseline data for the SEA, the noise sources (including the 

location and frequency of occurrence) presented in Table 1 were considered and provided in the 

initial noise modelling of Yard operations. These assumptions represent the current typical daily 

operations at the Yard and adjacent tracks. 
All Aboard Florida Proposed West Palm Beach Rail Yard 

Noise and Vibration Monitoring Report 

September 10, 2014 

6063120212 Page 5 

Table 1: List of Previously Modeled Noise Sources 

Time 

of Day 

Mainline

Freight Traffic 

Yard Inbound/Outbound

(I/O) Traffic Warning Horn Locomotive Idling 

Day 

07:00 – 

22:00 

5 trains per day, 42 

mph, 2 locos, 101 

cars

2 trains/day, 5 mph, 1 

locos, 12 cars 

Sounded by each train 

1/4 mile from 23rd St. 

and 15th 

Each of 2 trains that use 

yard for 30 minutes each 

Night

22:00 – 

07:00 

5 trains per night, 

42 mph, 2 locos, 

101 cars 

2 trains/night, 5 mph, 1 

locos, 12 cars 

Sounded by each train 

1/4 mile from 23rd St. 

and 15th 

Each of 2 trains that use 

yard for 30 minutes each 

The following are potential noise sources that were not considered in the previous noise 

modelling for the Yard. 

x Wheel Squeal – Noise created by train movement through tight curves 

x Special Track Work – Includes crossovers and switches 

x Train Coupling – From possible train building in the Yard or siding tracks 

x Public Address (PA) System – Loudspeaker on Yard property (not observed) 

x Yard Vehicle Traffic – General traffic related to deliveries, loading, unloading, etc... 

The previously modeled and non-modeled sources noted above are to be used as the basis of 

assessing ambient noise monitoring in the supplemental noise assessment report. 

8.2 Noise Monitoring – Sources 

Table 2 summarises hourly sound levels (Leq) captured from all four noise monitoring locations 

(NM1 through NM4), potential noise sources contributing the measured sound levels, daytime 

Leq, night-time Leq and day-night Ldn.

Table 2:Summary of Sound Levels and Noise Sources 

Hourly Leq Sound Levels(dBA)

Hour NM1 NM2 NM3 NM4 Mainline

Freight 

Yard

I/O 

Warning 

Horn

Locomot

ive 

Idling 

Special 

Track 

work 

Yard

Vehicle 

Traffic

00:00 – 

01:00 59 59 66 73 2 1 3 3 3 2

01:00 – 

02:00 59 58 67 75 1 2 3 2 2 2

02:00 – 

03:00 60 59 68 72 1 2 3 2 2 2

03:00 – 

04:00 51 54 52 46 2 2 2 2 2 2

04:00 – 

05:00 59 56 67 74 1 2 3 2 2 2

05:00 – 

06:00 66 62 73 74 2 2 3 2 2 2
All Aboard Florida Proposed West Palm Beach Rail Yard 

Noise and Vibration Monitoring Report 

September 10, 2014 

6063120212 Page 6 

Hourly Leq Sound Levels(dBA)

Hour NM1 NM2 NM3 NM4 Mainline

Freight 

Yard

I/O 

Warning 

Horn

Locomot

ive 

Idling 

Special 

Track 

work 

Yard

Vehicle 

Traffic

06:00 – 

07:00 57 62 61 66 2 2 2 2 2 3

07:00 – 

08:00 68 66 66 54 2 2 2 2 2 3

08:00 – 

09:00 74 65 69 71 1 1 3 3 3 3

09:00 – 

10:00 73 63 59 62 2 2 2 2 2 3

10:00 – 

11:00 73 64 62 60 2 2 2 2 2 3

11:00 – 

12:00 72 64 62 60 2 2 2 2 2 3

12:00 – 

13:00 70 64 58 58 2 2 2 2 2 3

13:00 – 

14:00 69 63 64 53 2 2 2 2 2 3

14:00 – 

15:00 71 64 62 53 2 2 2 2 2 3

15:00 – 

16:00 66 64 68 71 1 1 3 3 3 3

16:00 – 

17:00 63 64 60 52 2 2 2 2 2 3

17:00 – 

18:00 57 64 62 49 2 2 2 2 2 3

18:00 – 

19:00 50 63 63 63 2 2 2 2 2 3

19:00 – 

20:00 50 62 58 48 2 2 2 2 2 2

20:00 – 

21:00 62 62 68 72 1 2 3 2 2 2

21:00 – 

22:00 66 62 69 73 1 2 3 2 2 2

22:00 – 

23:00 50 60 55 48 2 2 2 2 2 2

23:00 – 

24:00 70 64 74 66 1 2 3 2 2 2

Daytim

e Leq

69 64 65 67     

Nighttime

Leq

63 60 69 72     

Ldn 71 67 75 77 
All Aboard Florida Proposed West Palm Beach Rail Yard 

Noise and Vibration Monitoring Report 

September 10, 2014 

6063120212 Page 7 

From the noise sources indicated in section 8.1 the following noise sources were not observed 

or are considered negligible: 

x Noise Sources Not Observed: 

o Wheel Squeal 

o Public Address (PA) System 

x Noise Sources Considered Negligible: 

o Coupling of trains 

o Special track work 

Other noises were observed and documented as having a significant noise contribution to the 

noise environment in the receptors: 

x NM1: 

o Noise generated by the HVAC system associated with the Yard building 

o Back-up Signals from Yard operations 

x NM2: 

o Traffic on Division Avenue 

o Back-up Signals from Yard operations 

x NM3: 

o Back-up Signals from Yard operations 

o Traffic across tracks on 15th Street 

x NM4: 

o No noticeable noise sources of significance 

8.3 Noise Monitoring – Baseline Adjustments 

Review of the noise monitoring data collected during the field event shows that noise sources of 

interest were recorded, but may not have occurred as frequently (either more or less) than a 

typical day. In order to utilize noise monitoring data for the modelling effort, baseline 

adjustments were made to the noise monitoring data so it was consistent with the operational 

assumptions for the Yard and adjacent tracks. Comparing the monitored noise sources to the 

previously modeled noise sources, AMEC noted the following: 

For Day Time: 

x One fewer freight train pass-by was noted. 

x Trains are moving slower than the modeled speed of 42 mph. 

x Trains going to the yard are much shorter than indicated in the model. 

For Night Time: 

x Three more trains were observed on the mainline than were modeled. 

x One less train was noted in the yard. 
All Aboard Florida Proposed West Palm Beach Rail Yard 

Noise and Vibration Monitoring Report 

September 10, 2014 

6063120212 Page 8 

To provide a comparative noise baseline to the modeled sources noted in Table 1, some 

adjustments to the measured dataset were required. The main discrepancy was the number of 

trains passing by during the night. This resulted in field-measured exposure times greater than 

what was previously modeled, or considered typical. Current train operations on the FECR 

corridor are not consistent, and the field measurements cannot be considered as typical of an 

average day (as per model assumptions). As the increased exposure times are not considered 

representative of typical operations, values were adjusted for the noise levels and calculated as 

per methodology below.

Taking into consideration the previous model data, the expected exposure time for trains 

passing by is approximately 110 seconds per train or 550 seconds per period (day or night). A 

review of the measured data showed that the exposure time for passing trains was: 

x 755 seconds for day time 

x 1,975 seconds for night time 

These increases are due to the increased number of trains observed (night time only) and the 

reduced speeds observed. Therefore, the exposure times were adjusted by reducing the 

observed train pass by noise for the night hours between 12 am and 5 am. Utilizing the baseline 

condition of 5 trains per night, the resulting exposure time is 1,190 seconds. This exposure time 

will be used for the supplemental noise assessment modelling. 

It should be noted that no correction was undertaken for speed as the maximum sound pressure 

level at NM4 (closest to the tracks with direct line of sight) ranges from 86 to 102 dBA and is in 

line with the approximate Lmax referenced in the FTA guidelines for a diesel locomotive. 

The final adjusted Leq and Ldn ambient noise levels for the monitoring program are presented in 

Table 3. 

Table 3: Adjusted Sound Pressure Level (measured) 

Noise Monitor 

Location 

Daytime Leq [dBA]

07:00 – 22:00

Night-time Leq [dBA]

22:00 – 07:00

Day-Night Ldn [dBA] 

NM1 69 62 71 

NM2 64 59 67 

NM3 65 67 73 

NM4 67 68 74 

8.4 Vibration Monitoring 

Vibration monitoring was conducted at two (2) locations for various setback distances from the 

track. Tables 4 and 5 present the results in terms of RMS values for the background vibration 

level and for trains passing by.
All Aboard Florida Proposed West Palm Beach Rail Yard 

Noise and Vibration Monitoring Report 

September 10, 2014 

6063120212 Page 9 

Table 4: Measured Vibration Levels at Location VM1 

VM1

Distance 

[ft] 

Background 

[VdB re 1E-6 in/s] 

Train Passby 

[VdB re 1E-6 in/s] 

25 34.5 78.6 

60 41.1 75.7 

80 56.2 72.5 

120(1) 49.1 74.2 

(1) This accelerometer was placed on concrete sidewalk and not on ground as for other setbacks 

Table 5: Measured Vibration Levels at Location VM2 

VM2

Distance 

[ft] 

Background 

[VdB re 1E-6 in/s] 

Train Passby 

[VdB re 1E-6 in/s] 

60 70.8 88.1 

80 58.6 84.8 

120 64.6 76.9 

160 70.6 74.0 

Figures 4 and 5 present a graphical time history of a train pass-by in VM1 and VM2. 

Figure 4: Vibration Levels (1 sec RMS) during train pass-by at VM1 

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Vibration Level [VdBref 1EͲ6 in/s]

Elapsed time [s]

VM1Ͳ Train Passby Ch1 @ 25 ftͲ Vrms = 78.6 VdB

Ch2 @ 60 ftͲ Vrms = 75.7 VdB

Ch3 @ 80 ftͲ Vrms = 72.5 VdB

Ch4 @ 120 ftͲ Vrms = 74.2 VdB

Train Pass-by 
All Aboard Florida Proposed West Palm Beach Rail Yard 

Noise and Vibration Monitoring Report 

September 10, 2014 

6063120212 Page 10 

Figure 5: Vibration Levels (1 sec RMS) during train pass-by at VM2 

9.0 CONCLUSION 

The data collected during the monitoring effort provides all the information required for a 

confirmatory review of the previous model results and provides additional information for the 

modeling assumptions (where required). A careful review of the potential noise sources due to 

Yard activities has provided insight on the type and frequency of noise sources and has also 

identified potential sources that can be removed from further consideration because they are not 

present. Other sources not clearly identified in the initial modelling effort have now been 

identified (e.g. traffic in Division Ave and 15th Street) and should be included in the modeling 

effort. After review of the assumptions in terms of traffic, and adjusting the measured values in 

order to have similar exposure time due to rail traffic, it is anticipated that the data presented in 

section 8.3 will be similar in magnitude to the results utilized for the initial baseline model. 

This report was prepared by AMEC and is based on information obtained by, or provided to 

AMEC. We have relied on the collected data and information provided to us and therefore are 

not liable or responsible for incomplete, incorrect and inadequate information. The material in it 

reflects AMEC’s judgment in light of the information available to us at the time of preparation. 

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Vibration Levels[VdBref 1EͲ6 in/s]

Elapsed Time [s]

VM2 Train PassBy Ch1 @ 60 ftͲ Vrms = 88.1 VdB

Ch2 @ 80 ftͲ Vrms = 84.8 VdB

Ch3 @ 120 ftͲ Vrms = 76.9 VdB

Ch4 @ 160 ftͲ Vrms = 74 VdB

Train Pass-by 
All Aboard Florida Proposed West Palm Beach Rail Yard 

Noise and Vibration Monitoring Report 

September 10, 2014 

6063120212 Page 11 

If you require further information regarding the above or the project in general, please contact 

the undersigned at (905) 568-2929. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service. 

Yours truly, 

AMEC Environment & Infrastructure 

a Division of AMEC Americas Limited 

Report Prepared by: 

Frank Babic, P.Eng. 

Acoustic Practice Lead 

Data Prepared by: 

Mohammed Salim, P.Eng 

Senior Environmental Noise Lead 

Reviewed and Updated by: 

Alfredo Rodrigues 

Senior Acoustic Specialist 
All Aboard Florida Proposed West Palm Beach Rail Yard 

Noise and Vibration Monitoring Report 

September 10, 2014 

6063120212 Page 12 

10.0 REFERENCES 

1. AMEC, “Addendum to Environmental Assessment Re-evaluation of Potential 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed West Palm Beach Rail Yard for the All Aboard 

Florida Passenger Rail Project from West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida”, July 2014. 
APPENDIX A 

FIGURES

Figure 1. Conceptual Yard Layout 

Figure 2. Noise and Vibration Monitoring Locations and Clusters 

Figure 3. Cluster Locations and Sensitive Receptors 
Figure 1
VM2

VM1

NM4

NM3

NM2

NM1 Cluster 1

Cluster 9

Cluster 4

Cluster 3

Cluster 2

Cluster 17

Cluster 16

Cluster 15

Cluster 14

Cluster 13

Cluster 12

Cluster 11

Cluster 10

Church 2

Church 4

Church 1

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics,

CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,

swisstopo, and the GIS User Community, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia,

© OpenStreetMap contributors

Monitoring and Cluster Locations

Figure

Path: H:\AllAboardFlorida\Task1\MXD\WPB Yard - Monitoring and Cluster Locations.mxd

Project # 6063-12-0212

All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project

0 450 Feet

Data Sources: ESRI 2012, FRA 2012, FGDL 2012, AMEC 2014.

Corridor Centerline

Explanation of Features

Existing FECR R/W

Noise Monitoring Location Existing Yard Building

A

Vibration Monitoring Location

Category 2 Receptors – Clusters

Category 2 Parcel

Church

Category 2 Representative Receptor

Category 3 Receptors – Churches

 2
Church 3

Cluster 9

Cluster 7

Cluster 6

Cluster 5

Cluster 8

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics,

CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,

swisstopo, and the GIS User Community, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia,

© OpenStreetMap contributors

Monitoring and Cluster Locations

Figure

Path: H:\AllAboardFlorida\Task1\MXD\WPB Yard - Monitoring and Cluster Locations.mxd

Project # 6063-12-0212

All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project

0 450 Feet

Data Sources: ESRI 2012, FRA 2012, FGDL 2012, AMEC 2014.

Corridor Centerline

Explanation of Features

Existing FECR R/W

Noise Monitoring Location Existing Yard Building

B

Vibration Monitoring Location

Category 2 Receptors – Clusters

Category 2 Parcel

Church

Category 2 Representative Receptor

Category 3 Receptors – Churches

 3
APPENDIX B 

EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION CERTIFICATION 


Sensor Information Calibration Data Transducer Specifications

Data Table Phase Response

Amplitude Response

Notes

Customer

User Notes

Lab Conditions Unit Condition

°F (°C)

%

Equipment Used

Approval Information

Calibration Lab

TMS 2129E025-779 111 n/a

Technician:

Cal Date:

442A102

Reference Std

Air Bearing Shaker

080A200

As Left:

As Found:

23-Jun-14

Due Date:

Humidity: 54

Data Aquisition Card

Description

Temperature: 71 (22)

Ref Std Conditioner

Approval: SUT Signal Conditioner

Power Amplifier

Reference Std

Long Stroke Shaker

Wayne Underwood

Cal ID: 23941

Cincinnati, OH 45241

3149 E. Kemper Rd

TMS Rental

-4.4502

30 0.8962 -1.8350

450 -2.1025 -17.1048

300 -1.2994 -11.9110

100

5 2.1893 -0.5564

10 1.9072 -0.8413

50 0.5431 -2.5397

400 -1.8383 -15.4082

200 -0.6342 -8.1607

0.0000

2 2.4905 -0.0503

This calibration was performed with TMS 9155 Calibration Workstation version 5.4.0

3 2.4432 -0.3257

4 2.3234 -0.4599

Freq. (Hz) Deviation (%) Phase (deg)

Results relate only to the items calibrated.

0.5 3.3741 1.4558

1 3.0130 0.4436

Description: ICP® Accelerometer 0 to 176 °F

Axis: Uni-Axial

Resonant Freq:  2500 Hz

-18 to 80 °C

Test Level: 1.00

ID Number: 46414 Output Bias Level: 11.3 VDC Temp. Range:

Manufacturer: PCB

deg. Resolution:

g

~Calibration Certificate~

0.000003 g

mV/g Amp. Range: ± 5 g

Serial Number: 34621 Phase @ 100 Hz: -4.45

Model Number: 393B04 Sensitivity @ 100 Hz: 988.37

Calibration traceable to NIST (project number 822/271196).

In Tolerance

This certificate may not be reproduced except in full, without written permision.

Method: Calibration is performed in compliance with ISO 9001 and ISO 17025

Procedures Used: PRD-P220, PRD-P214

Back-to-Back Comparison Calibration per ISO 16063-21

In Tolerance

Measurement uncertainty (95% confidence level with coverage factor 2) for frequency 

ranges tested during calibration are as follows: 0.5-1 Hz; 1.10%; >1-10 Hz; ± 0.80%, 11-

99 Hz; ±1.20%, 100 Hz; ± 0.75%, 101-920 Hz; ± 1.00%, 921-5000 Hz; ± 1.40%, 5001-

10,000 Hz; ± 1.90%, 10,001-15,000 Hz; ± 2.20%, 15,001-20,000 Hz; ± 2.8%.

PCB

PCB

Model

4461

PCI-6251

n/a

Due Date

11/20/2014

1/1/2015

12/3/2014

2100E21-C

10/9/2014

n/a

PCB

TMS 1074

111

443B101

Manufacturer

NI

NI

PCB

Serial

396C11

TMS 2129E025

Ref Std Conditioner

1/1/2015

E4F2A4

136F2A3

110553

603

305

373

12/3/2014

-10

-5

0

5

10

0.5 5 50 500

Deviation (%)

Frequency (Hz)

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

0.5 5 50 500

Phase (deg.)

Frequency (Hz)

2649.01

Page 1 of 1
Sensor Information Calibration Data Transducer Specifications

Data Table Phase Response

Amplitude Response

Notes

Customer

User Notes

Lab Conditions Unit Condition

°F (°C)

%

Equipment Used

Approval Information

Calibration Lab

TMS 2129E025-779 111 n/a

Technician:

Cal Date:

442A102

Reference Std

Air Bearing Shaker

080A200

As Left:

As Found:

23-Jun-14

Due Date:

Humidity: 54

Data Aquisition Card

Description

Temperature: 71 (22)

Ref Std Conditioner

Approval: SUT Signal Conditioner

Power Amplifier

Reference Std

Long Stroke Shaker

Wayne Underwood

Cal ID: 23938

Cincinnati, OH 45241

3149 E. Kemper Rd

TMS Rental

-4.4487

30 0.8695 -1.8398

450 -2.2100 -17.0912

300 -1.3497 -11.9132

100

5 2.4433 -0.5772

10 2.1495 -0.8591

50 0.4972 -2.5343

400 -1.9448 -15.3996

200 -0.7458 -8.1531

0.0000

2 2.8006 -0.0781

This calibration was performed with TMS 9155 Calibration Workstation version 5.4.0

3 2.7262 -0.3486

4 2.5872 -0.4878

Freq. (Hz) Deviation (%) Phase (deg)

Results relate only to the items calibrated.

0.5 3.7911 1.3935

1 3.3565 0.4054

Description: ICP® Accelerometer 0 to 176 °F

Axis: Uni-Axial

Resonant Freq:  2500 Hz

-18 to 80 °C

Test Level: 1.00

ID Number: 46415 Output Bias Level: 12.4 VDC Temp. Range:

Manufacturer: PCB

deg. Resolution:

g

~Calibration Certificate~

0.000003 g

mV/g Amp. Range: ± 5 g

Serial Number: 34428 Phase @ 100 Hz: -4.45

Model Number: 393B04 Sensitivity @ 100 Hz: 979.12

Calibration traceable to NIST (project number 822/271196).

In Tolerance

This certificate may not be reproduced except in full, without written permision.

Method: Calibration is performed in compliance with ISO 9001 and ISO 17025

Procedures Used: PRD-P220, PRD-P214

Back-to-Back Comparison Calibration per ISO 16063-21

In Tolerance

Measurement uncertainty (95% confidence level with coverage factor 2) for frequency 

ranges tested during calibration are as follows: 0.5-1 Hz; 1.10%; >1-10 Hz; ± 0.80%, 11-

99 Hz; ±1.20%, 100 Hz; ± 0.75%, 101-920 Hz; ± 1.00%, 921-5000 Hz; ± 1.40%, 5001-

10,000 Hz; ± 1.90%, 10,001-15,000 Hz; ± 2.20%, 15,001-20,000 Hz; ± 2.8%.

PCB

PCB

Model

4461

PCI-6251

n/a

Due Date

11/20/2014

1/1/2015

12/3/2014

2100E21-C

10/9/2014

n/a

PCB

TMS 1074

111

443B101

Manufacturer

NI

NI

PCB

Serial

396C11

TMS 2129E025

Ref Std Conditioner

1/1/2015

E4F2A4

136F2A3

110553

603

305

373

12/3/2014

-10

-5

0

5

10

0.5 5 50 500

Deviation (%)

Frequency (Hz)

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

0.5 5 50 500

Phase (deg.)

Frequency (Hz)

2649.01

Page 1 of 1
Sensor Information Calibration Data Transducer Specifications

Data Table Phase Response

Amplitude Response

Notes

Customer

User Notes

Lab Conditions Unit Condition

°F (°C)

%

Equipment Used

Approval Information

Calibration Lab

TMS 2129E025-779 111 n/a

Technician:

Cal Date:

442A102

Reference Std

Air Bearing Shaker

080A200

As Left:

As Found:

23-Jun-14

Due Date:

Humidity: 54

Data Aquisition Card

Description

Temperature: 71 (22)

Ref Std Conditioner

Approval: SUT Signal Conditioner

Power Amplifier

Reference Std

Long Stroke Shaker

Wayne Underwood

Cal ID: 23939

Cincinnati, OH 45241

3149 E. Kemper Rd

TMS Rental

-4.4442

30 0.9029 -1.8198

450 -2.3040 -17.0870

300 -1.4378 -11.9200

100

5 2.3806 -0.5759

10 2.0861 -0.8496

50 0.5361 -2.5218

400 -2.0439 -15.3780

200 -0.7013 -8.1538

0.0000

2 2.7396 -0.1002

This calibration was performed with TMS 9155 Calibration Workstation version 5.4.0

3 2.6670 -0.3573

4 2.5249 -0.4839

Freq. (Hz) Deviation (%) Phase (deg)

Results relate only to the items calibrated.

0.5 3.7729 1.2756

1 3.3092 0.3501

Description: ICP® Accelerometer 0 to 176 °F

Axis: Uni-Axial

Resonant Freq:  2500 Hz

-18 to 80 °C

Test Level: 1.00

ID Number: 46418 Output Bias Level: 12.5 VDC Temp. Range:

Manufacturer: PCB

deg. Resolution:

g

~Calibration Certificate~

0.000003 g

mV/g Amp. Range: ± 5 g

Serial Number: 34616 Phase @ 100 Hz: -4.44

Model Number: 393B04 Sensitivity @ 100 Hz: 989.61

Calibration traceable to NIST (project number 822/271196).

In Tolerance

This certificate may not be reproduced except in full, without written permision.

Method: Calibration is performed in compliance with ISO 9001 and ISO 17025

Procedures Used: PRD-P220, PRD-P214

Back-to-Back Comparison Calibration per ISO 16063-21

In Tolerance

Measurement uncertainty (95% confidence level with coverage factor 2) for frequency 

ranges tested during calibration are as follows: 0.5-1 Hz; 1.10%; >1-10 Hz; ± 0.80%, 11-

99 Hz; ±1.20%, 100 Hz; ± 0.75%, 101-920 Hz; ± 1.00%, 921-5000 Hz; ± 1.40%, 5001-

10,000 Hz; ± 1.90%, 10,001-15,000 Hz; ± 2.20%, 15,001-20,000 Hz; ± 2.8%.

PCB

PCB

Model

4461

PCI-6251

n/a

Due Date

11/20/2014

1/1/2015

12/3/2014

2100E21-C

10/9/2014

n/a

PCB

TMS 1074

111

443B101

Manufacturer

NI

NI

PCB

Serial

396C11

TMS 2129E025

Ref Std Conditioner

1/1/2015

E4F2A4

136F2A3

110553

603

305

373

12/3/2014

-10

-5

0

5

10

0.5 5 50 500

Deviation (%)

Frequency (Hz)

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

0.5 5 50 500

Phase (deg.)

Frequency (Hz)

2649.01

Page 1 of 1
Sensor Information Calibration Data Transducer Specifications

Data Table Phase Response

Amplitude Response

Notes

Customer

User Notes

Lab Conditions Unit Condition

°F (°C)

%

Equipment Used

Approval Information

Calibration Lab

TMS 2129E025-779 111 n/a

Technician:

Cal Date:

442A102

Reference Std

Air Bearing Shaker

080A200

As Left:

As Found:

19-Aug-14

Due Date:

Humidity: 53

Data Aquisition Card

Description

Temperature: 70 (21)

Ref Std Conditioner

Approval: SUT Signal Conditioner

Power Amplifier

Reference Std

Long Stroke Shaker

Wayne Underwood

Cal ID: 24406

Cincinnati, OH 45241

3149 E. Kemper Rd

TMS Rental

-4.2995

30 0.7622 -1.7465

450 -2.2249 -16.5276

300 -1.3718 -11.5189

100

5 2.2632 -0.5121

10 1.2766 -0.9597

50 0.4735 -2.4441

400 -1.9125 -14.8898

200 -0.7037 -7.8494

0.0000

2 2.5311 -0.0035

This calibration was performed with TMS 9155 Calibration Workstation version 5.4.0

3 2.4946 -0.2753

4 2.3875 -0.4136

Freq. (Hz) Deviation (%) Phase (deg)

Results relate only to the items calibrated.

0.5 3.3583 1.5186

1 3.0399 0.4997

Description: ICP® Accelerometer 0 to 176 °F

Axis: Uni-Axial

Resonant Freq:  2500 Hz

-18 to 80 °C

Test Level: 1.00

ID Number: 47989 Output Bias Level: 10.6 VDC Temp. Range:

Manufacturer: PCB

deg. Resolution:

g

~Calibration Certificate~

0.000003 g

mV/g Amp. Range: ± 5 g

Serial Number: 36798 Phase @ 100 Hz: -4.30

Model Number: 393B04 Sensitivity @ 100 Hz: 982.86

Calibration traceable to NIST (project number 822/271196).

In Tolerance

This certificate may not be reproduced except in full, without written permision.

Method: Calibration is performed in compliance with ISO 9001 and ISO 17025

Procedures Used: PRD-P220, PRD-P214

Back-to-Back Comparison Calibration per ISO 16063-21

In Tolerance

Measurement uncertainty (95% confidence level with coverage factor 2) for frequency 

ranges tested during calibration are as follows: 0.5-1 Hz; 1.10%; >1-10 Hz; ± 0.80%, 11-

99 Hz; ±1.20%, 100 Hz; ± 0.75%, 101-920 Hz; ± 1.00%, 921-5000 Hz; ± 1.40%, 5001-

10,000 Hz; ± 1.90%, 10,001-15,000 Hz; ± 2.20%, 15,001-20,000 Hz; ± 2.8%.

PCB

PCB

Model

4461

PCI-6251

n/a

Due Date

11/20/2014

1/1/2015

12/3/2014

2100E21-C

10/9/2014

n/a

PCB

TMS 1074

111

443B101

Manufacturer

NI

NI

PCB

Serial

396C11

TMS 2129E025

Ref Std Conditioner

1/1/2015

E4F2A4

136F2A3

110553

603

305

373

12/3/2014

-10

-5

0

5

10

0.5 5 50 500

Deviation (%)

Frequency (Hz)

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

0.5 5 50 500

Phase (deg.)

Frequency (Hz)

2649.01

Page 1 of 1
Manufacturer: Asset ID:

Model Number: Customer: TMS Rental

Serial Number: 129113 Calibration Date:

Description: Due Date:

Sensitivity: 250 Hz 1 kHz Temperature: 72 (22) °F (°C)

-25.59 -25.66 dB re. 1V/Pa Humidity: 26 %

52.54 52.10 mV/Pa 999.9 mbar

Cal. Results: In Tolerance Polarization Voltage: 0 VDC

Traceability: The calibration is traceable through 683/281794-12.

Notes: Calibration results relate only to the items calibrated.

 This certificate may not be reproduced, except in full, without written permission.

 This calibration is performed in compliance with ISO 9001, ISO 17025 and ANSI Z540.

 Measurement uncertainty (250 Hz sensitivity calibration) at 95% confidence level: 0.30 dB.

 Calibrated per procedure PRD-P204.

Frequency

(Hz)

Upper

(dB)

Frequency

(Hz)

Upper

(dB)

Frequency

(Hz)

Upper

(dB)

Frequency

(Hz)

Upper

(dB)

20 -0.28 630 0.01 4500 -0.02

25 -0.02 800 0.04 5000 0.00

31.5 0.00 1000 0.05 5600 0.02

40 0.01 1120 0.05 6300 0.04

50 -0.11 1250 0.05 7100 0.06

63 0.00 1400 0.05 8000 0.13

80 0.03 1600 0.03 9000 0.19

100 0.03 1800 0.04 10000 0.10

125 0.00 2000 0.04 11200 -0.01

160 0.01 2240 0.03 12500 0.28

200 0.00 2500 0.04 14000 0.74

250 0.00 2800 0.03 16000 1.07

315 0.01 3150 0.03 18000 1.16

400 0.00 3550 0.01 20000 0.75

500 0.02 4000 -0.02

Technician: Wayne Underwood Reference Equipment Used:

 Manuf. Model Serial Cal. Date Due Date

Approval: GRAS 40AG 77606 9/16/2013 9/16/2014

CALIBRATION CERT 2649.01 Page 1 of 1

Frequency Response with reference to level at 250 Hz

User Note : As Found/As Left In Tolerance

Ambient Pressure:

~Certificate of Calibration~

Jan 10, 2014 12:27:42

Free-Field Microphone

377B02

PCB 48280

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10 100 1000 10000

dB

Frequency [Hz]

Frequency Response Characteristics : The upper curve is the free field 

characteristic for the microphone with protection grid. The lower curve is the 

pressure response recorded by electrostatic actuator.

Sensitivity : The stated sensitivity is the open-circuit sensitivity. When used with a 

typical preamplifier the sensitivity will be 0.2 dB lower.
Manufacturer: o

F

o

C

%

mbars

hPa

Upon receipt for testing, this instrument was found to be:

Within the Stated tolerance of the manufacturer's specification

PRD-F242 revNR December 2, 2008 Page 1 of 1

Calibration Date: Calibration Due: 14-Feb-14

Technician: Signature: Wayne Underwood

The results documented in this certificate relate only to the item(s) calibrated or tested. Calibration interval

assignment and adjustment are the responsibility of the end user. This certificate may not be reproduced, except in

full, without the written approval of The Modal Shop.

This Certificate attests that this instrument has been calibrated under the stated conditions with Measurement and 

Test Equipment (M&TE) Standards traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). All of the 

Measurement Standards have been calibrated to their manufacturers’ specified accuracy / uncertainty. Evidence of 

traceability and accuracy is on file at The Modal Shop and/or Larson Davis Corporate Headquarters. An acceptable 

accuracy ratio between the Standard(s) and the item calibrated has been maintained. This instrument meets or 

exceeds the manufacturer’s published specification unless noted.

Calibration Standards Used:

This calibration complies with ISO 17025 and ANSI Z540. The collective uncertainty of the Measurement Standard

used does not exceed 25% of the applicable tolerance for each characteristic calibrated unless otherwise noted.

LDSigGen/2239 0760/0109 4/12/2014 2012-161465

Manufacturer

Larson Davis

986.2

986.2

Model Serial Number Cal Due Traceability No.

Temperature:

Note: As Found / As Left: In Tolerance

Description: Sound Level Meter

22.17

17.7

Customer: Pressure:

71.9

TMS Rental

Certificate of Calibration and Conformance

Serial Number:

Model Number:

Larson Davis

831

Rel. Humidity:

This document certifies that the instrument referenced below meets published specifications per

Procedure PRD-P263; ANSI S1.4-1983 (R 2006) Type 1; S1.4A-1985; S1.43-1997 Type 1; S1.11-

2004 Octave Band Class 0; S1.25-1991; IEC 61672-2002 Class 1; 60651-2001 Type 1; 60804-2000

Type 1; 61260-2001 Class 0; 61252-2002.

3220

The Modal Shop, Inc.

3149 East Kemper Road

Cincinnati, OH 45241

Phone: (513) 351-9919

 (800) 860-4867

www.modalshop.com







APPENDIX C 

WEATHER DATA 
86$) WBAN YR--MODAHRMN SPD TEMP PCP01 PCP06 PCP24 PCPXX SD

 12844 201408190000 10 86 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408190053 7 85 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408190153 6 85 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408190253 7 84 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408190353 7 84 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408190453 5 83 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408190459 ***   ** *** ***** 0 ***** 0

 12844 201408190553 5 82 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408190600 5 82 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408190653 0 80 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408190753 0 81 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408190853 5 79 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408190953 0 79 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408191053 0 79 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408191153 0 81 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408191200 0 81 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408191253 3 84 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408191353 6 87 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408191453 6 90 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408191553 6 90 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408191653 9 90 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408191753 8 91 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408191800 8 91 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408191853 11 91 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408191953 11 92 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408192053 13 91 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408192153 10 89 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408192253 10 88 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408192353 10 87 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408200000 10 87 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408200053 9 86 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408200153 6 85 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408200253 8 85 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408200353 6 84 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408200453 6 83 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408200459 ***   ** *** ***** 0 ***** 0

 12844 201408200553 5 83 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408200600 5 83 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408200653 0 82 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408200753 3 81 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408200853 0 81 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408200953 0 80 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408201053 0 80 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408201153 0 81 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408201200 0 81 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408201253 3 84 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408201353 0 87 0 ***** ***** ***** **
86$) WBAN YR--MODAHRMN SPD TEMP PCP01 PCP06 PCP24 PCPXX SD

 12844 201408201453 6 89 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408201553 6 91 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408201653 0 91 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408201753 10 93 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408201800 10 93 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408201840 14 91 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408201853 11 91 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408201953 11 89 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408202053 3 86 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408202104 3 87 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408202153 0 85 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408202253 8 87 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408202353 5 85 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408210000 5 85 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408210053 6 84 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408210153 7 85 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408210253 5 84 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408210353 5 84 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408210453 5 84 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408210459 ***   ** *** ***** 0 ***** 0

 12844 201408210553 3 83 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408210600 3 83 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408210653 0 81 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408210753 3 80 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408210853 0 79 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408210953 0 79 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408211053 3 79 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408211153 3 82 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408211200 3 82 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408211253 6 85 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408211353 0 88 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408211453 6 89 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408211553 6 90 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408211635 11 90 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408211653 9 91 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408211722 11 90 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408211753 11 91 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408211800 11 91 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408211853 11 91 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408211953 13 90 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408212053 9 90 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408212153 11 89 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408212253 10 88 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408212353 8 86 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408220000 8 86 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408220053 7 85 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408220153 5 85 0 ***** ***** ***** **
86$) WBAN YR--MODAHRMN SPD TEMP PCP01 PCP06 PCP24 PCPXX SD

 12844 201408220253 5 84 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408220353 6 85 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408220453 5 84 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408220459 ***   ** *** ***** 0 ***** 0

 12844 201408220553 5 84 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408220600 5 84 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408220653 0 83 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408220753 3 79 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408220853 0 81 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408220953 0 80 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408221053 0 80 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408221153 3 82 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408221200 3 82 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408221253 0 83 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408221321 3 83 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408221353 6 85 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408221453 3 88 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408221525 3 90 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408221553 6 90 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408221653 8 91 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408221744 13 91 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408221753 13 91 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408221800 13 91 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408221853 9 91 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408221953 7 91 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408222011 8 90 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408222053 9 90 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408222153 9 90 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408222253 9 88 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408222353 10 86 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408230000 10 86 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408230053 8 86 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408230153 9 85 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408230253 6 84 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408230353 7 84 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408230453 8 84 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408230459 ***   ** *** ***** 0 ***** 0

 12844 201408230553 3 83 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408230600 3 83 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408230653 3 80 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408230753 0 80 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408230853 5 80 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408230953 3 80 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408231053 3 79 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408231153 6 80 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408231200 6 80 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408231253 6 84 0 ***** ***** ***** **
86$) WBAN YR--MODAHRMN SPD TEMP PCP01 PCP06 PCP24 PCPXX SD

 12844 201408231353 6 88 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408231453 8 88 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408231553 6 90 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408231653 8 91 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408231753 8 92 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408231800 8 92 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408231853 13 91 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408231953 13 91 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408232053 13 90 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408232153 11 89 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408232253 11 87 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408232353 8 86 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408240000 8 86 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408240053 9 86 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408240153 8 85 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408240253 8 85 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408240353 10 85 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408240453 7 84 0 ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408240459 ***   ** *** ***** 0 ***** 0

 12844 201408240553 3 83 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408240600 3 83 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408240653 5 79 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408240753 5 80 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408240853 5 78 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408240953 0 78 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408241053 3 78 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408241153 6 80 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408241200 6 80 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408241253 7 84 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408241353 7 87 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408241453 8 90 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408241553 6 91 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408241653 11 93 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408241753 14 93 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408241800 14 93 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408241853 9 92 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408241953 11 93 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408242053 11 91 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408242153 10 90 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408242253 8 88 ***** ***** ***** ***** **

 12844 201408242353 6 86 ***** ***** ***** ***** **
All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm Beach to Miami 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment – West Palm Beach Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

Appendix B:  Noise and Vibration Analysis    October 2014

   

This page intentionally left blank.